Douglas County advisory board upholds revocation of VHR permit for 377 Mary Ann Drive

The Douglas County Vacation Home Rental Advisory Board voted 3-2 at its meeting to uphold the county's revocation of the vacation home rental (VHR) permit for 377 Mary Ann Drive in Stateline, Nevada.

County staff said the property failed a Tahoe Douglas Fire inspection on May 30, 2024 because of water damage, lack of power and a nonworking monitored fire system, prompting a suspension of the permit. Ernie Strehlow, Douglas County code enforcement manager and VHR manager, told the board that a later inspection passed on Dec. 26, 2024 and the permit was reinstated, but staff's advertising-monitoring tools then identified listings that advertised capacity for 16 and 14 guests. "Tahoe Douglas Fire inspected the property of discussion here on 05/30/2024 and because of water damage which is noted in page 87 of the packet the damage included no power to home, fire system not working, and subsequently it failed the inspection," Strehlow said.

Strehlow said a notice of violation, including a $2,500 fine, was issued Dec. 31, 2024 after staff located a post advertising a higher guest count while the permit had been suspended. Staff also identified an October 2024 listing that showed a higher capacity under a different host name and documented multiple listing additions and removals for the address in their crawler history.

The property owner, who introduced herself at the hearing as Karen Talam and is identified in the packet as Parlak Karantalam, told the board she had closed most listings during repairs, moved an arriving group to a different property and then reopened the listing after the December inspection. "I immediately went and changed it to 9," she said, describing steps she said she took after learning of the ad showing a larger guest count.

Strehlow clarified that filing an appeal stays the revocation while the administrative process runs, meaning the owner was able to take reservations during the appeal period. Neighbors and a public commenter cited concerns about parking and noise in the neighborhood; a written letter from a neighbor was included in the board packet.

Board members debated whether the violations (advertising for more guests than permitted and accepting a reservation beyond the permit's 9-person occupancy) merited revocation or a lesser sanction. One member urged leniency and fines instead of revocation; other members said accurate public advertising is the enforcement tool the county relies on and that accepting a reservation above the permit level was a compelling reason to uphold enforcement. After deliberation the motion to affirm the county's revocation passed 3-2.

The board also voted that the appellant had standing to bring the appeal before deliberating the merits; that standing vote passed unanimously.

The revocation upheld by the board remains in place per the board's action.