Hearing officer finds Maestas, Magana responsible for Coconino County zoning violations; 30-day compliance and $600 fine ordered

At a Coconino County zoning violation hearing called to order at 10 a.m., a hearing officer found the respondents in County of Coconino v. Maestas and Magana responsible for zoning violations after they failed to appear and ordered a 30-day compliance period and a $600 fine.

The ruling stems from citation PCC 23-0012 and alleged violations listed under Coconino County zoning ordinance 5.14 and a citation reference to section 4.7. The county presented a citation dated April 23, 2025, and inspection photos dated June 3, 2025. Mr. Brown, the hearing officer, said the finding was based on the respondents’ nonappearance and their failure to submit an admission-or-denial form, which the record treats as an admission by default. "I have no choice but to enter a finding of responsibility and to impose a penalty," Brown said, adding he would base the finding specifically on "vehicle parts, household items, secondhand materials, and refuse."

County staff described service attempts and the condition of the property. Mr. Stento, a county representative, said the county sent the citation, an admission-or-denial form, and a notice to appear to an address in San Diego and that a final notice was signed for by Leticia Magana, who is listed in county records as an "in care of" contact for owner Wendy Maestas. "The county is seeking a 30-day compliance period, beginning today, and ... a fine of $600, based on an assessment of $20 per day," Stento said. He also told the hearing officer that photos taken June 3 show lingering vehicle parts, household items, secondhand materials and general refuse but no tires or inoperable vehicles at that inspection.

The hearing officer ordered a 30-day compliance period starting on the record and set a recall hearing for July 10, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. If compliance is not achieved after the initial period, the county requested a continuing fine of $20 per violation per day and asked the hearing officer to exercise discretion to determine compliance at the recall. Stento said the county may consider issuing an abatement notice and pursuing cleanup if the condition persists because the remaining trash "represents a health and safety hazard to the neighbor." The county will follow the hearing with a written order specifying the timeline and penalties.

The county’s supporting statements say Code Enforcement Officer John Cole delivered a copy of the citation to the property and left it on the door when an alleged tenant, identified in the record as Leonard ("Lenny"), was not present; county staff later spoke with Lenny on May 28, and Lenny told staff he had received county documentation. The county reported it has not received a completed admission-or-denial form from the respondents.

No formal motion, second, or council vote occurred; this was an administrative hearing in which the officer issued a default finding and a compliance schedule. The hearing record notes that the county may escalate to abatement and cleanup actions if the respondents do not remedy the cited conditions within the ordered period.