Board upholds Planning Commission denial of June Lake short‑term rental 3–2 after de novo hearing

The Mono County Board of Supervisors voted 3–2 on Feb. 18 to uphold the Planning Commission’s December denial of a use permit that would have allowed conversion of a newly constructed home at 19 Willow Avenue in Down Canyon, June Lake, into a short‑term rental.

Community Development Director Wendy Sugimura told the board the Planning Commission denied the permit because the application failed finding No. 3 — that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area. She highlighted the county’s policy that "short term rentals in single family residential neighborhoods should support a model for the supplemental sharing of excess assets rather than a full business or investment model," and noted short‑term rentals in many areas are now elevated to use permits to allow public review and conditions.

Applicant Colin Poe told the board he and his wife built the 1,500‑square‑foot residence with the intention of nightly rentals and said they planned additional units on the parcel in the future. "We spent about $1,400,000 building this house," Poe said, and described management plans including contracted snow removal, trash handling and occupancy controls intended to keep the property from becoming a nuisance.

A public commenter urged the board to consider conditions that could address neighborhood concerns while allowing the property to operate as a rental. "This is a small structure. It's about 1,500 square feet. It's intended only to house a maximum of 6 people," the commenter said, and recommended limits on occupancy and vehicles as enforceable conditions.

Supervisors were divided over whether the parcel should be treated as a commercial lodging site or as a residential property subject to policies intended to protect scarce local housing. Supervisor McFarland argued the project was contemplated from the start as lodging and "should be reviewed and analyzed as such," while Supervisor Dugan said, "As a single family home, my preference is to honor the policies as I read them and uphold the Planning Commission's decision." After discussion, a motion to uphold the Planning Commission passed with Supervisors Dugan, McFarland and Crites voting yes and Supervisors Peters and Salcedo voting no.

The board closed the public hearing and directed staff to work with the applicant and community development if the applicant seeks an alternative approach; the decision leaves the applicant the option to pursue different permitting paths or to return with additional information. No immediate change to the property’s construction or occupancy occurred at the meeting.

The board’s decision was a formal, final action on this appeal at this hearing, recorded as a 3–2 vote to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial.