Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Violation Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing officer finds DeWitty out of compliance with Coconino County zoning order; fines imposed
Summary
At an April 8 recall hearing, a Coconino County hearing officer found property owner David DeWitty had not come into compliance with a March zoning order governing parcels 97 and 100, and imposed fines described in the March 6 order after county staff testified that two occupied RVs and debris remained on the parcels.
Hearing Officer Brown found April 8 that David DeWitty had not achieved compliance with a March 6, 2025 zoning order covering parcels 97 and 100 in Coconino County and imposed the fines set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 of that order.
The finding followed testimony from a county code enforcement officer who said a site visit on April 7, 2025, showed “multiple RVs occupied with the generator running,” and visible household activity and debris on the parcels. The officer asked that county exhibits R1 through R7 be admitted; the hearing officer admitted the exhibits into evidence.
The county witness told the hearing that one RV had a generator running and that a person was seen exiting another RV and doing domestic tasks. The officer said the parcels remain vacant in the county’s records and that “the zoning ordinance only permits screening if there's an approved residential use on the property,” meaning the storage and accumulation of materials visible in photographs are not allowed on a vacant parcel. The officer described items observed in photographs marked R6 as including a broken ATV, a battery, tubing or conduit, and a tire.
The hearing record shows the county hand-delivered the prior March 6 order to DeWitty on March 10 and that certified-mail tracking shows a delivery on March 21 at 12:20 p.m.; the county will submit that tracking and the prior order as evidence (marked R8). The county witness said a prior site visit and a 15-minute conversation with DeWitty occurred when the earlier order was served, but the witness said they had not received further communications from DeWitty after that visit and that DeWitty did not appear at the recall hearing.
Hearing Officer Brown said, “I do find that the respondent has not achieved full compliance, and therefore the fines that were set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 of my 03/06/2025 order are hereby imposed.” The officer said a written order would follow.
The officer and county staff distinguished violations that remain from cleanup that has occurred: the witness acknowledged some cleanup but said debris and unauthorized occupancy remained. The county witness also noted access limitations during inspection caused by an on-site dog pen.
The record does not state the dollar amount of the fines listed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the March 6 order; the hearing officer said those fines would be imposed as specified in the prior order. The officer also clarified that screening allowances under section 4.7 of the county zoning ordinance apply only to parcels with an approved residential use and that a vacant parcel without such an approved use may not lawfully be used to store vehicles, construction materials, or similar items.
The hearing concluded with the officer saying the written order imposing the fines would be issued and that the county would email counsel copies of the certified-mail confirmation and the original notice. The hearing was then adjourned.
