VHR advisory board denies appeal of $500 fine for Stateline rental at 115 Cypress Way

The Douglas County Vacation Home Rental Advisory Board on Thursday upheld a $500 civil penalty assessed to the owners of 115 Cypress Way in Stateline, denying an appeal of a code-enforcement finding that the property violated county vacation-home-rental (VHR) rules.

Board members voted 3–1 to deny the appeal after hearing presentations from county staff, the homeowners and neighbors. The county’s staff report and the sheriff’s incident record drove much of the board’s review; the board also considered the owners’ noise-monitor data and neighbor recordings submitted in the record.

The penalty, issued under Douglas County code section 20.622040, stemmed from a noise disturbance reported to the sheriff on May 3 and from a separate finding the owners had not conspicuously posted the VHR permit at the property. County staff told the board they received the sheriff’s report (time recorded about 00:59) and issued a notice of violation and assessment of the civil penalty on May 12. The code cited requires owners to use “best efforts” to prevent unreasonable noise and to post the permit “in a conspicuous place.”

Owner Richard Norton told the board he and his co-owner, Deborah Morgan, had taken many steps to prevent disturbances and to inform guests of rules. Norton described the reservation process, a written rental agreement, a welcome book and posted signs near the patio and hot tub. He said the property has a noise monitor that “is configured to match the levels prescribed to section 20.622040” and that the device did not register an exceedance on the night in question: “According to our monitor, noise levels on the morning of May 3 never exceeded these parameters. We received no alert.” Norton said their VHR permit is posted opposite the front door and that a copy was added to the welcome book after the incident.

Neighbors gave a different account. Several residents said their neighborhood has experienced repeated disruptions at the property, citing loud groups, parties near the hot tub at night and late departures. Belinda Crawford, who lives directly across the street, told the board she had submitted recordings and that callers to the sheriff’s office had reported repeated problems. Neighbor Steve Arbek, who identified himself as the caller to the sheriff, said he has submitted multiple recordings and raised an additional legal question: his neighborhood’s CC&Rs prohibit business activities, and he asked why the county issued a permit when the homeowners’ CC&Rs appear to bar short-term rentals. County staff told the board that a generic CC&R prohibition of “business activity” is not sufficient by itself to block a VHR permit; an HOA or CC&R document must explicitly prohibit short-term rentals for the county to withhold a permit.

Board members spent considerable time debating how to weigh sheriff reports, neighbor testimony and private noise-monitor data. Several members emphasized that the board’s VHR rules include objective decibel thresholds intended to guide determinations, while others argued the sheriff’s on-scene judgment and resident experience also carry weight. County counsel AJ Haines told the board owners are “obligated to use best efforts” to prevent unreasonable noise and that the board may weigh the totality of evidence — recordings, the responding deputy’s report, owner actions and monitoring data — in reaching a decision.

Formal votes during the hearing included a unanimous motion granting the appellant standing to appeal, and an unsuccessful attempt to reduce the sanction to a warning (the motion died for lack of a second). The final motion to affirm code enforcement’s decision passed by a 3–1 vote; board members did not read an itemized roll call during the final tally. The board recorded the final tally as yes 3, no 1; the appeal was denied and the $500 penalty stands.

The board concluded the hearing by inviting the appellants and neighbors to remain for later agenda discussion on proposed code changes that include clearer posting requirements, a consolidated “code of conduct” for renters, and processes for emergency contacts and enforcement. The board said several of those items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.