Hearing officer upholds zoning violations, imposes fines on Bacon property in Coconino County

A Coconino County hearing officer on May 5 upheld an earlier finding that Walter and Dana Bacon were violating the county zoning ordinance and ordered penalties to begin accruing under the officer’s April 7 order.

The hearing officer said the county’s follow-up inspections in May showed no change at the Bacon property and that the officer would “follow what the zoning ordinance says and impose the penalties that were set forth in my earlier order.” The officer encouraged the Bacons to work with county staff on a payment plan and said a written order would be circulated.

The county entered photographs and site-visit reports as exhibits showing multiple inoperable vehicles, secondhand materials and what appeared to be cages or fencing on the property. Mark Stento, compliance manager for Coconino County, identified exhibits R-2 through R-5 as May site-visit photos and said they show the same conditions documented in earlier February–March 2025 exhibits.

“There's an initial penalty to the request today, symbolizing the amount of $600, which represents $20 per violation per day from the initial hearing dates to the compliance date of May 7, and an additional $20 per violation per day for each date [the] violation continues,” Stento said during testimony.

Walter Bacon, the respondent appearing by telephone, testified he and his wife have been ill and temporarily staying in a homeless shelter and that he has been unable to work on the property. “I've been trying to get out there, but, unfortunately, my wife and I were sick, and we had to find a place to sleep at a homeless shelter,” Bacon said. He told the hearing he hoped to arrange people to repair tires, obtain keys and remove scrap materials but acknowledged “nothing has changed” at the property since the prior inspection.

County staff noted multiple follow-up inspections in May. Stento testified he conducted the May 5 site visit and that code enforcement officer Tristan Douse performed a later visit; the county requested the May exhibits be admitted and the hearing officer admitted R-2 through R-5 into evidence.

The hearing officer reminded Bacon that licensed, registered and operable vehicles are not subject to enforcement under section 4.7 of the zoning ordinance but said the county’s imagery and inspections over more than three years showed no movement of the vehicles and that several are damaged or burned, making it unlikely they could be driven away. The officer added that the existence of ongoing violations limits the county’s willingness to grant permits that would otherwise allow certain occupancy or camping on the property.

The officer directed the parties to continue communications with county staff, saying the county was willing to discuss a payment plan. The officer also said that even after fines are imposed, the Bacon property owners remain obligated to bring the property into compliance; once compliance is achieved fines would stop accruing.

The hearing concluded with the officer saying a written order would be issued and circulated to the county and the respondent. The officer instructed county staff to ensure Bacon receives a copy.