Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rental Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Daniel council affirms staff finding that 487 Cobble Creek Lane violated short‑term rental and nuisance rules
Summary
After neighbor testimony and owner rebuttal, the Daniel Town Council voted to affirm staff's determination that 487 Cobble Creek Lane had been used as an unauthorized short‑term rental and that its conditions constituted a nuisance; council instructed staff to prepare written findings for later adoption.
The Daniel Town Council on June 1 voted to affirm a staff determination that the property at 487 Cobble Creek Lane had been used as an unauthorized short‑term rental and that conditions on the property had created a nuisance under town code.
Town counsel Clayton Preess summarized the staff case, citing a cease‑and‑desist issued Nov. 10, 2025, multiple complaints (including items dated Dec. 19, 2024 and Aug. 1, 2025) and evidence that the property had been advertised on VRBO and Airbnb for stays shorter than 30 days. He told the council that short‑term rentals are prohibited by town code (section 8.21.26(2)) and explained enforcement options including daily fines of $750 per offense and injunctive relief.
Neighbors who testified said they had recorded loud music, overnight lighting, buses and what they described as firing not related to the local gun club. "We have several video accounts from my yard," Jolene Bassett said, describing mariachi music and an episode of apparent gunfire that prompted a sheriff response.
Property owner Drew Riley told the council he used the land extensively for family events and group mentorship activities, said he had canceled reservations and offered to sign a settlement agreement promising not to market the home as a short‑term rental. "We shut down nightly rentals. We've canceled all the reservations," Riley said, while also disputing the number of formal sheriff responses and questioning the complaint record and some alleged conflicts of interest in how complaints were filed.
Council members debated options including affirming or reversing the staff determination, tabling the matter for further settlement discussions, or pursuing fines that would require the council to specify dates and numbers of violations. A council motion to affirm the staff finding was amended to explicitly include the nuisance determination; the motion passed, and staff was instructed to prepare written findings and conclusions for formal adoption at a later meeting.
The council did not set a specific fine amount at the meeting; counsel said fines would require the council to identify dates of violations. The council also noted that settlement negotiations could continue and that the adoption of written findings would be scheduled for a subsequent meeting.
