Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vhr Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Douglas County board upholds revocation of vacation-rental permit for 342 Mary Ann Drive
Summary
The Douglas County Vacation Home Rental Advisory Board voted to uphold the county ecision to revoke the VHR permit for 342 Mary Ann Drive and to sustain associated penalties after county staff presented two confirmed noise incidents and evidence the owner failed to respond within required timelines.
The Douglas County Vacation Home Rental Advisory Board voted to uphold the county ecision to revoke the vacation-home rental permit for 342 Mary Ann Drive and to sustain the administrative penalties tied to repeated noise complaints.
County code-enforcement specialist Ernie Strager told the board the property had a history of complaints, including a late-night noise call that resulted in a $2,500 civil penalty for failure to respond within the required 30 minutes, and a subsequent confirmed disturbance that led to a notice of violation and further penalties. Strager cited sections of the VHR code that require owners to designate a local contact who can respond within 30 minutes and to use "best efforts" to prevent guests from creating unreasonable noise.
Neighbors who spoke during public comment described recurring disturbances at the house. "This sounded like a fraternity house, party," said Lisa Hori, a neighbor who called the VHR hotline after the July incident, adding that the property had been a longstanding source of complaints. Another neighbor, Judd McIntyre, described submitting an audio recording and said the noise was audible from neighboring properties.
Board members debated whether the appellant—ould expand the scope of the appeal beyond the items in the written filing and whether evidence presented at the hearing should be limited to the original submission. After finding the appellant had standing to bring the appeal, the board moved to affirm the county's revocation decision. The motion to uphold the revocation and associated penalties was seconded and passed unanimously among the members present.
The board—ited multiple compliance failures, including the owner—ailing to maintain a validated local contact and not responding within the timeframe required by county code. The board did not set aside the county's enforcement action. The matter is recorded in county code-enforcement files and the VHR permit for the property remains revoked.
