Keith County denies conditional‑use permit for vacation rental at Hidden Canada Estates

The Keith County Board of Commissioners denied Conditional Use Permit 24‑18, an application by Alexander and Minnie Knuth to operate a short‑term vacation rental on Lot 17, Replat Block 3, Hidden Canada Estates (commonly described as 317 Hidden Canada Estates).

The vote on the motion to deny the permit carried 4‑1: Wartman (yes), Irvin (yes), Anderson (yes), Crandall (yes); Schroeder voted no. A motion to deny was made on the floor and seconded; the board then conducted a roll‑call vote.

The applicant, Alexander Knuth, described plans for a two‑story dwelling with five bedrooms, four bathrooms and an occupancy limit he said would be up to 16 persons; he told the board the site plan includes a long driveway and he planned to limit driveway parking to six vehicles. Knuth said he had supplied a floor plan, tenant rules and a site map to county staff and that he had built safety measures into the proposed rental: fire extinguishers, first‑aid kits, exterior cameras, noise monitors, a contracted cleaning crew and a nearby community member who would provide 24‑hour monitoring and maintenance contact information.

Much of the hearing focused on neighborhood opposition. Planning staff submitted a petition and packet showing majority opposition; audience members and mailed comments were presented. Sam Norville, who said he serves on Hidden Canyon's road committee, told the board the community's governing documents restrict commercial use and that residents purchased into a quiet, largely retired community. One resident said a petition with roughly two dozen written objections had been submitted; several commissioners referenced receiving 24 written objections and two letters in support.

The board examined whether restrictive covenants or an HOA would prohibit short‑term rentals; the applicant said his title documents did not include HOA covenants that would bar rentals and that he had been told by his selling agent there were no short‑term‑rental restrictions beyond the road maintenance fee noted in his closing documents. Board members also referred to prior public testimony (a full room of neighbors had attended an earlier meeting) and said they weighed the community impact and the majority opposition in deciding to deny the permit.

No formal appeal or enforcement condition was announced at the meeting; the denial will be reflected in the county planning records and the applicant may pursue any appeals or future permit requests according to county procedures.