Douglas County affirms revocation of vacation‑home rental permit for 377 Mary Anne Drive after advertising during suspension

The Douglas County Board of County Commissioners on April 17 affirmed the VHR Advisory Board’s revocation of a vacation‑home rental (VHR) permit for 377 Mary Anne Drive in Stateline after staff presented evidence that the property was advertised above its permitted occupancy and that advertising occurred while the permit was suspended.

What staff presented: Ernie Strelo, VHR program manager, summarized the county’s case. The property had been permitted as a Tier 2 VHR since February 2021, with approval for five bedrooms, four parking spaces and a maximum overnight occupancy of nine. On May 30, 2024 Tahoe‑Douglas Fire notified the county that the property had significant water damage and nonworking fire alarm systems; staff sent a notice of suspension pending corrected inspections. Tahoe‑Douglas Fire failed a reinspection in August 2024 and later passed a December 2024 inspection; Douglas County released the permit on Dec. 30.

Code enforcement later found online advertisements for the property showing daytime and overnight capacities of 14–16 guests during the period when the VHR permit was suspended, county staff said. County code requires that all VHR advertising include the maximum permitted occupancy and prohibits marketing a VHR without an active permit; staff recorded screenshots and timelines showing the ads were posted during the suspension period.

Owner’s argument: The property owner, Kiran Talam, was not present; Ryan Holland appeared as his representative. Holland said Talam had transferred some bookings to a different property he owns in El Dorado County and that some listings were re‑activated to allow transfers for guests. Talam’s written statement acknowledged an error on a listing and said the listing was corrected promptly after county contact. Holland said a property manager has been hired, a noise monitor and exterior camera would be added, and he committed to compliance going forward.

Advisory board and commission decisions: The VHR advisory board previously voted 3–2 to uphold the revocation. The Board of County Commissioners considered the staff report, advisory board record and testimony from the owner’s representative, then moved to affirm the advisory board’s action. (The board’s final vote to affirm the revocation is recorded in the minutes of April 17; the county will notify the property owner of the right to reapply, staff said.)

Why it matters: The case highlights enforcement of Douglas County’s VHR ordinance — particularly requirements that advertisements reflect permitted occupancy and that suspended permits not be marketed or rented. County staff said the revocation followed repeated advertising above the permitted overnight occupancy and signs that the property may have been booked during the suspension period.

Ending: The commission’s action upholds the VHR advisory board’s revocation. Staff indicated the owner may reapply after the specified suspension period and that enforcement steps and compliance measures (property management, monitoring) are appropriate elements of future permit considerations.