Cochise County supervisors go into executive session after residents urge enforcement against Ramsey Canyon Inn

Residents of Ramsey Canyon told the Cochise County Board of Supervisors on a special meeting that the Ramsey Canyon Inn is operating large commercial events without required permits and in violation of local zoning, creating noise, safety and environmental risks. After public comment, the board voted to go into executive session to discuss pending litigation concerning the Inn.

The most direct testimony came from four residents who described repeated events at the Inn and said county enforcement has been incomplete. “What's happening at Ramsey Canyon Inn is not just a neighborhood nuisance. It's an exploitation of one of Arizona's most ecologically sensitive and historically significant areas,” resident Jennifer Scaldone said during the public-comment period. Scaldone said the property hosts “dozens of large weddings each year” with as many as 120 guests and that those events go beyond the scope of an earlier, owner-occupied bed-and-breakfast permit.

Robert Singler, who said his family lives in Ramsey Canyon, told the board the Inn’s gatherings have created noise, parking congestion and what he described as a serious fire and evacuation risk on the narrow canyon road. “The septic system is way overtaxed for what it was permitted for,” Singler said. He also told the board the county attorney had filed an injunction declaring Ramsey Canyon Inn a public nuisance and that the Inn owners have filed an $18,000,000 notice of claim against the county.

Dr. Susan Carlson and Catherine Riemer, who also spoke, described disturbed sleep, safety concerns for elderly and mobility-impaired neighbors, and alleged retaliation by the property owner toward neighbors who complained. Riemer told the board she fears harassment and said some neighbors have declined to speak publicly because of it.

After the public-comment period, a supervisor moved that the board enter executive session “for discussion and possible direction regarding the pending litigation involving the Ramsey Canyon Inn.” The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. Supervisors Crosby, Gomez and Anthony indicated “aye” during the roll call vote; the board then closed the public meeting and restricted the room to supervisors, county legal staff and specified staff for the executive session.

The board’s public record at the special meeting showed no substantive public action or final decision on the litigation or on enforcement at the time of adjournment. The chair told attendees there was “no action scheduled, no vote scheduled” in public and that the executive session was for legal discussion. When the board reconvened, the chair announced they had exited executive session and adjourned.

The public commenters asked the board to enforce zoning and safety regulations, to require the Inn to obtain appropriate special-use or commercial permits if its operations exceed a bed-and-breakfast authorization, and to ensure enforcement proceeds without special exceptions. Commenters said county attempts to secure voluntary compliance had failed and that neighbors — including “34 surrounding neighbors” who signed a petition, according to one speaker — were seeking consistent application of county rules. Residents also raised potential fire risks from open-flame heaters, crowded parking on a narrow road, and septic-system overload during large events.

No formal enforcement action, permit decision or settlement terms were announced at the meeting. The board’s only recorded public action on the agenda was the motion and voice approval to enter executive session to discuss the pending litigation concerning Ramsey Canyon Inn.

Details taken from public comments and the board’s proceedings were limited to those provided during the meeting. Several speakers named the property owner as Scott Kepner; commenters also referenced a county filing described to the board as an injunction, and said the owner had submitted a large notice-of-claim against the county. The meeting record did not include new filings, permit documents or a public staff report with additional factual findings.