Coconino County board affirms hearing officer in Church of the Common Good code-enforcement appeal

The Coconino County Board of Supervisors unanimously affirmed a hearing officer's decision on Sept. 23, 2025, finding that the Church of the Common Good was responsible for zoning violations at a property on BNSFRR Road and upholding sanctions and a 30-day compliance deadline set by the hearing officer.

The decision matters because the appellant argued the county's enforcement imposed a substantial burden on its religious exercise and invoked the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The board concluded the hearing officer's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the officer did not abuse his discretion.

Pastor Andrew Stevens, representing the Church of the Common Good, told the board the property had been bought under a land contract in July 2020 during COVID-era closures and that inspections and enforcement actions occurred before the church formally owned the parcel. Stevens said the site is used as a religious retreat and shelter for itinerant missionaries and argued the county's enforcement would force costly infrastructure changes that would undermine their ministry. "This is not merely a land use dispute. This is a matter of religious liberty," Stevens said.

Mark Stento, compliance manager for Coconino County Community Development, summarized the county's record and evidence. "This case is straightforward," Stento told the board, noting inspections over an eight-month period documented occupied RVs, makeshift dwellings, and outdoor storage of refuse and inoperable vehicles. Stento said the hearing officer made credibility determinations after reviewing photographs, testimony and exhibits and that the county's ordinance bars RV habitation and outdoor storage of refuse and unregistered vehicles on G-zoned parcels without proper permits.

Community Development staff emphasized the county had provided multiple notices and opportunities to correct the violations and that the hearing officer's order allowed a compliance period and modest civil sanctions in the event of noncompliance. Stento told the board no fines had been applied because the property had appealed before any sanction hearing.

Board members deliberated under the limited standard of review for appeals of enforcement actions: whether the hearing officer abused his discretion, made an error of law, or lacked substantial evidence. Rose Winkler, attorney to the Board of Supervisors, explained that the board's role was to review the hearing record and not re-weigh the evidence.

Supervisors said they reviewed the full record, the exhibits and hearing transcript. Supervisor Tammy Ontiveros moved to find that the hearing officer did not abuse his discretion; Supervisor Judy B. Horstman seconded the motion. During discussion, Horstman said she found substantial evidence in the record and that the zoning protections serve compelling health, safety and welfare interests. Other supervisors expressed similar reasons for supporting the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

The board's action affirms the hearing officer's order; the case file and the hearing officer's findings remain the operative enforcement action. The board also noted the county's zoning ordinance applies equally to religious and secular landowners and that the order did not prohibit worship or ministry but required compliance with neutral, generally applicable land-use rules.

Next steps: the affirmed order remains in place and the county may resume enforcement procedures if compliance does not occur under the timelines and conditions set by the hearing officer and the county's enforcement process.