Douglas County board upholds revocation of vacation‑rental permit at 342 Maryann Drive

The Douglas County Vacation Home Rental Advisory Board on Monday affirmed the county’s decision to revoke the vacation‑home rental permit for 342 Maryann Drive and upheld civil penalties tied to repeated noise complaints and a failure to respond as the designated local contact.

County code enforcement presented a timeline of complaints and contacts that led to the revocation. Ernie Strangler, for the record, summarized that the property held a valid VHR permit for seven bedrooms, six parking spaces and a maximum overnight occupancy of 10. Strangler said a late‑night noise complaint on Aug. 17 prompted attempts to reach the owner’s listed emergency contact; the county did not receive a response within the required 30 minutes and assessed a $2,500 penalty, which was paid. He said later noise complaints and a confirmed sheriff’s office response led to a second substantial violation and the revocation notice.

“Pursuant to Douglas County code sections … the VHR owner must use best efforts to ensure that renters or guests of the vacation home rental do not create unreasonable noise or disturbances,” Strangler told the board, citing the VHR code provisions read into the record.

Neighbors described repeated disturbances at the property. Lisa Hori, who said she called the hotline on July 12, told the board the July incident “sounded like a fraternity house party” and said she appreciated that the VHR hotline allowed her to report the problem. Jim McIntyre said he recorded the noise to show how loud it was, testifying the recording “did a valid recording.” Vaughn Reems and Dirk Yurisich described recurring noise and parking problems that reach across the neighborhood.

Board members discussed whether the appeal complied with the code’s appeal‑filing requirements and whether additional material filed after the appeal should be considered. AJ (counsel) noted the appeal form listed constitutional and vagueness claims but provided little factual detail to define the scope of review. The board voted to find the appellant had standing and later voted to affirm the county decision upholding the revocation and the associated penalties.

A motion to affirm the county’s decision was moved by a board member and seconded; the board recorded the outcome as an affirmative vote with three yes votes and no votes recorded against the motion. The record shows the civil penalties were assessed at $2,500 per violation; county staff said the assessed amount in this matter had been paid.

The board’s action ends the advisory process unless the appellant pursues other administrative or legal remedies. Board members and several neighbors urged stronger local contact procedures and clearer verification practices to limit recurrence.