PARADISE VALLEY, Ariz. — There’s a gorgeous 7,500-square-foot home on a corner lot in Paradise Valley that’s attracting a lot of attention.

Cherr Monroe once worked inside the mansion for Fratpad.com/Fratmen.com.

“It’s a webcam house,” Monroe said. “Members pay a fee to watch the guys and talk to them in the chat room.”

Monroe’s in a labor dispute with the company over money, something the owner of the website said he’s trying to solve.

The former employee is now sharing exclusive details about what goes on in the house

When asked what Monroe saw during business hours she said, “Just guys pleasuring themselves. They would walk around naked. That’s kind of part of the daily show.”

A homeowner in the area sent out a letter to neighbors last week.

The writer encouraged people to get in touch with Paradise Valley council members if they were concerned about what they called a “pornography house.”

The owner of Fratpad.com, John Marsh, told 3TV over the phone he’s not doing anything illegal. Marsh declined an on-camera interview to protect his identity.

“We’re not really doing pornography,” he said. “It’s live webcam and very fun and silly. It is adult-oriented. We have other website properties that are operated in other locations that are much more sexually explicit than Fratpad.”

Some homeowners aren’t OK with Fratpad.com operating in their neighborhood.

Lee Morris lives near the home and said he paid a lot to live in a quiet neighborhood. He also said this activity “should not be tolerated.”

Other neighbors don’t seem to care.

According to Marsh, he’s been renting the large house for years.

The owner of the site said his business actually helps out the neighborhood.

“We have really saved that house from foreclosure,” Marsh said. “We’ve been taking very good care of it.”

This summer police investigated the legality of the business.

According to Mayor Scott LeMarr, the business owner wasn’t doing anything illegal.

LeMarr sent 3TV a copy of the town’s investigation report:

Town staff has investigated a complaint regarding explicit filming activity occurring at a residential property. The results of the staff investigation are as follows:

• A complaint was made to the Police Department on January 12th regarding reported explicit filming activity that was occurring at a home in the Town and a detective was assigned to investigate this complaint.

• On June 11, the detective performed a “knock and ask” at the property in question. A young man answered the door, was advised why the detective was there, and invited the detective into the home and showed him around. The detective observed the following:

o The young man showed the detective a number of webcams set up around the house.

o The webcams were reported to record the occupants’ daily activities, perhaps including activities that occur in the bedrooms.

o The detective noted in his report that the number of people at the house was around 9 to 12.

• The detective followed up on the business that was associated with the webcam setup and found that it was a business registered with the corporation commission in Arizona and California. The business itself sells subscriptions to people who can then have access to the live webcams for a three-month period of time.

• The detective concluded his investigation and determined that there was insufficient evidence to find a basis for criminal activity.

• Because the police department did not find a basis for criminal activity, the matter was not referred to the county attorney’s office for review.

• Further, the town’s legal department reviewed the file with the police department and concurred that there was no basis for finding criminal activity.

• The detective did refer the comment regarding 9 to 12 persons at the home to code enforcement staff to investigate as a Town Code compliance matter.

• Code enforcement sent a letter to the owner of the property on June 13 advising that a potential Town Code violation on the property recently came to the Town’s attention, namely, that if more than five unrelated persons are living in a single family dwelling, this would be a violation of Section 502 of the Code.

• Shortly thereafter code enforcement received a call from the renter of the home, who indicated that the owner had sent him the Town’s advisory letter. He advised code enforcement that he was a tenant on the property and that only 4 occupants live at the house; and that the remainder of those observed by the detective were guests.

• Based on that information, code enforcement found no basis for any Town Code violations, including the home occupation provisions of the Code. Further, Town staff concluded that neither a business license, nor any other permits, were required.

If additional information is provided that suggests either criminal activity or a Town Code violation, town staff will review the complaint based on that additional information. Otherwise, no further action is contemplated by staff at this time.