Advisory board denies appeal of $500 fine for Stateline vacation home rental

The Douglas County Vacation Home Rental Advisory Board on a 3–1 vote denied an appeal by property owners Richard Norton and Deborah Morgan of a $500 civil penalty issued for alleged VHR code violations at 115 Cypress Way in Stateline.

The owners appealed a May 3 incident that resulted in a citation and assessment for a noise disturbance and for failure to post the VHR permit in a conspicuous place as required by county code. Staff presented a sheriff's report, caller records and uploaded media from the complainant; the owners submitted a noise-monitor log and materials describing the steps they say they took to inform and manage guests.

Board staff member Ernie Strelo summarized the county's case, saying the sheriff's report confirmed a late-night noise disturbance and that code enforcement issued a notice of violation and the $500 assessment. Owner Richard Norton told the board he and his co-owner had taken a range of steps — written house rules, pre-stay messages, a welcome book and a noise monitor configured to the county-prescribed levels — and that the monitor did not record a trigger on the night in question. Norton said the owners have added the permit to the welcome book after the incident and that a copy had been posted at the door earlier.

Residents who live near 115 Cypress Way urged the board to uphold the fine. Melinda Crawford, who said she lives across the street, told the board, "The regulations you have do little to protect us as neighbors against the noise that comes from the VHR across the street from my house," and described repeated late-night disturbances and safety concerns. Another neighbor, Steve Roback, told the board he had submitted multiple recordings and raised the point that his neighborhood's CC&Rs do not allow vacation rentals.

Board members debated how to weigh subjective observations by responding deputies against objective data from an owner-installed noise monitor. Vacation Home Rental Advisory Board member Micky Hempler argued for giving greater weight to the monitor data in the context of the VHR code, saying, "So vacation home rentals need to be judged by those rules. Not what the sheriff would do normally when it comes around to see my house." Other members said deputies' observations, the time and duration of the disturbance, and neighborhood context were also relevant.

Before the final vote the board first agreed unanimously that the appellants had standing to bring the appeal. On the appeal itself the board voted 3 to 1 to affirm the decision of code enforcement, denying the owners' appeal and leaving the $500 civil penalty in place. One board member had proposed reducing the assessment to a warning; that proposal failed for lack of a second.

The board did not reverse or modify the county's finding that the permit had not been posted in a manner that responding deputies could locate, though the owners said they had posted a permit at the front door and later added a copy to the welcome book and provided a copy to the sheriff's office.

The board and staff also discussed enforcement practices and the limits of county authority: staff explained that complaints made directly to the sheriff's office often produce a report that can be used by code enforcement, and that host-compliance calls to the county generate a separate follow-up process. Strelo said the county's code requires owners to use "best efforts" to prevent disturbances and to post permits conspicuously under Douglas County Code section 20.622.040.

The board invited additional neighborhood input and reminded the owners of the county's complaint and host-compliance processes. No further penalty changes were imposed by the board at the meeting; the original civil penalty remains in place.