California businessman Gary Fanger said he is not doing anything illegal because the two rental houses advertised at fangerestates.com are “;available for 30 days or more.”;

If rented for 30 days or more, his houses would not be considered transient vacation units and are available for renting as single-family units.

But a resident complained of commercial activities at the estate, including a wedding reception, which would be considered illegal.

Fanger said the wedding reception that occurred in early June was for his son Lance.

But the Star-Bulletin found Lance Fanger was not getting married there that day. The bride whose wedding was held at the Fanger Estates told the Star-Bulletin that she and her husband paid to have the wedding reception at Fanger Estates, making it a commercial operation.

She said she had initially booked her wedding for another location but that the operators at the other location had double-booked, forcing her to move the wedding to the Fanger Estates.

Fanger's two houses are under construction. Fanger also said someone in the city permit section told him he did not need a certificate of occupancy before using the residence, but Fanger was unable to provide a name of the official.

He then said the electrical and plumbing systems were working, but there were “;some issues”; that needed further discussion.

The Web site vacationrentals.com indicated that Fanger Estates was booked for more than 40 days from August through December and that all the bookings were for about a week or less at a time, which would require a permit from the city.

When asked to explain, Fanger initially said, “;It must be a different property, because it's impossible to be us.”;

Fanger later acknowledged that the Web site was doing bookings for him, and said the reservations were for his family and relatives.

Fanger called later to say he found out about two months ago that he could not do transient vacation rentals, so he added the “;30 days or more”; rental clause to his Fangerestates.com Web site.

He said the vacationrentals.com Web site apparently was not notified of the change.