Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hearing officer finds Bacon property out of compliance with Coconino County zoning; daily fines ordered

3591238 · May 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A recall hearing in Coconino County determined Walter and Dana Bacon remain in violation of zoning ordinance Section 4.7. The hearing officer ordered penalties per an earlier order and left open the option of a payment plan with county staff.

A hearing officer for Coconino County found on May 29, 2025, that the property owned by Walter and Dana Bacon remained out of compliance with the county's zoning ordinance and ordered civil penalties tied to an earlier April 7 order.

The decision follows a recall hearing on citation “PCC 20 2-0040, County of Coconino v. Walter and Dana Bacon,” at which county compliance staff presented photographic evidence from follow-up site visits on May 5 and May 20 showing the same piled vehicles, secondhand materials and fencing previously documented in February and March. The hearing officer said the penalties set in the April 7 order would be imposed and encouraged the Bacons to work with county staff on a payment plan.

The case matters because continued noncompliance triggers daily fines under the county zoning ordinance and because the property has been the subject of repeated site inspections dating back months. The county’s compliance manager and a code enforcement officer told the panel that satellite imagery and repeated on-site inspections show little or no vehicle movement over multiple years, and that several vehicles appear fire- or collision-damaged.

County compliance manager Mark Stento identified the county's May photographs — admitted as exhibits R-2 through R-5 — showing a burned older Jeep Comanche, a Jeep YJ, a small Isuzu-type SUV or pickup with a camper, at least one van with flat tires and a U-Haul–style truck, as well as secondhand mechanical materials and fenced cages. Stento told the hearing officer the May photos showed “the same state of the vehicles as the county’s initial exhibits” from February and March.

Respondent Walter Bacon testified by phone that he and his wife had been sick and were staying in a homeless shelter after losing a hotel room. “Nothing has been done since. I’ve been in a homeless shelter right now,” Bacon said. Bacon described plans to arrange help to repair tires, obtain keys and call a scrap dealer for removal of some items, and asked the hearing officer to delay imposing penalties until he could secure assistance.

The hearing officer acknowledged Bacon’s circumstances but said the scope of the recall hearing was limited to whether the property was in compliance as of the hearing date and, if not, to impose the penalties described in the earlier order. The officer said he would issue a written order reflecting today’s ruling and advised Bacon that if he could bring vehicles into licensed, registered and operable condition that could affect enforcement, but that the county’s photographic and satellite record made that outcome unlikely. The officer also noted that licensing and operability would not cover certain unlicensed equipment such as a generator trailer the respondent described.

Stento said the county seeks the same relief laid out in the April 7 order, including an initial penalty amounting to $600 — described in testimony as $20 per violation per day counting from the initial hearing date through the compliance date of May 7 — and an additional $20 per violation per day for each day the violation continues thereafter. Stento also told the hearing officer the county was willing to discuss a fine-payment plan and compliance plan with Bacon.

The hearing officer ordered penalties consistent with the April 7 order, said a written order would be circulated to the parties and advised the Bacons to coordinate with county staff if they wished to propose a payment plan to be memorialized in an order. The hearing officer emphasized that penalties do not remove the ongoing obligation to bring the property into compliance.

No formal vote by a board was recorded; the hearing officer imposed the penalties in his ruling at the close of testimony. The hearing record shows the county served the April 7 order on the Bacons by certified mail on April 14, 2025, and that county staff conducted follow-up site visits on May 5 and May 20 (with an additional site visit noted by the county on or about May 29).