Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ramsey Canyon residents press Cochise County over alleged zoning, safety violations; supervisors enter executive session on litigation
Summary
Residents told the Cochise County Board of Supervisors that the Ramsey Canyon Inn has been operating large commercial events without required permits, creating noise, traffic and safety concerns. The board entered an executive session to discuss pending litigation related to the property.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ramsey Canyon residents urged the Cochise County Board of Supervisors on a special meeting day to enforce zoning and safety rules after what speakers described as years of large, unpermitted events at the Ramsey Canyon Inn.
Residents said the Inn has hosted frequent weddings and other gatherings with as many as 120–130 guests, loud music and outside vendors, and they told the board those activities are beyond the scope of the property—s existing permit. "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," said Jennifer Scaldone, a Ramsey Canyon resident who spoke during the meeting's public comment period.
The residents said the area is zoned RU-4 to limit density and nonresidential uses; they said the Inn is operating as an entertainment venue without the special use permits residents say are required. "The Ramsey Canyon Inn is not in compliance with Cochise County codes, and this threatens our neighbors, our safety, and our well-being," said Robert Singler, who identified himself as a resident of Ramsey Canyon. Neighbors described noise, parking congestion on a narrow canyon road, smoking, alcohol use, open-flame heaters, strain on an undersized septic system and a potential hazard for evacuation or emergency response.
"Zoning regulations, safety and fire regulations, permitting should be enforced so that all residents of Ramsey Canyon are not in jeopardy and can feel safe and respected," said Stephanie Carlson, a resident who said she and her husband bought a home in Ramsey Canyon in 1995. Speakers noted a neighbor who uses a wheelchair and said congestion during events could impede emergency access.
Several residents also described alleged retaliation by the property owner, including harassment and legal claims. Catherine Riemer said the owner, identified in public comment as Scott Kepner, filed a notice of claim for $18,000,000 against Cochise County; she and other speakers said the county had already filed an injunction in April 2025. "I know it used to be later till like midnight ... We're done with being treated like this," Riemer said, asking the county to act on repeated complaints.
After public comment, a supervisor moved to go into executive session under state open-meeting law to discuss "possible direction regarding the pending litigation involving the Ramsey Canyon Inn," citing ARS 38-431.03. The motion was seconded and the board voted to enter executive session; the clerk noted that members of the public were asked to leave the conference room. County staff who remained for the executive session included planning and zoning staff and legal counsel, according to the meeting record.
The board later announced it had exited the executive session and there was no public action scheduled or taken on the underlying zoning or enforcement matters at that time. A county attorney's injunction and other legal filings were discussed in closed session, according to the board's statement at the meeting's close.
Speakers at the meeting asked the board to enforce zoning, to ensure fire and public-safety rules are upheld, and to protect the character of Ramsey Canyon, which several commenters described as a nationally recognized natural area. The residents said 34 neighboring property owners signed a petition asking the county to enforce its regulations.
The board did not take a public vote on enforcement or permitting during the meeting; supervisors instead directed that the matter be discussed in executive session with legal staff. The county did not announce further public actions or a timetable for enforcement at the meeting's close.

