Coconino County asks hearing officer to order cleanup, fines for RV occupancy and trash at 867 West Canyon Road

Coconino County code enforcement asked a hearing officer on Feb. 4 to order owners John and Beverly Riffle to clean up their 1.22-acre property at 867 West Canyon Road and to impose fines if alleged violations are not abated within 30 days.

The request came during a zoning-violation hearing before Howard Brown, Coconino County’s hearing officer, in which county inspector Mark Stento testified that inspections from April 2024 through early February 2025 documented continued occupancy of an RV and at least one shed, accumulation of trash and household items, an unregistered vehicle and alleged improper wastewater disposal. The county admitted exhibits 1–6 and additional photos taken Feb. 3 as evidence.

The county’s opening described the parcel as a split-zoned lot (Agricultural Residential and CG-10 Commercial General) of about 1.22 acres and said the property’s residential portion would permit an RV only transiently (up to four months) with a temporary use permit or permanently only after a conditional-use permitting process. Mark Stento, described during the hearing as the county’s zoning inspector, testified that no building permits or temporary-use permits had been issued for the property and that recent site visits showed “an increasing amount of rubbish, household items, and at least one unregistered vehicle on the property.” He added that the condition of the property had worsened between inspections.

Stento told the hearing, “This presents health and safety concerns,” citing unlawful wastewater disposal and the volume of refuse as the county’s principal concerns. He said the county had issued notices of violation and a citation (PCC240018), had attempted to serve certified mail and had had repeated on-site inspections documented in the admitted exhibits.

Owners John and Beverly Riffle testified under oath. They said they do not live full time on the parcel, that they were uncertain how part of the parcel came to show commercial zoning, and that tenants on the property had told them they would move out. The Riffles told the hearing that tenants had paid rent through March 5 (and during the hearing also referenced payment through Feb. 5), and that they expected the tenants to leave soon. The Riffles said they would work to clean the property once tenants vacated.

The county told the hearing it did not seek penalties immediately but asked the hearing officer to require abatement within 30 days of the Feb. 4 hearing. Stento described the county’s requested relief: a compliance deadline 30 days from the hearing and, if violations persist, fines calculated as $20 per day per violation (the county characterized the request as a deconstructed $1,200 figure and then explained the per-day structure). The county also asked for a recall hearing in June at 10 a.m. (date in June not specified in the hearing transcript). Stento said the county would waive fees at the hearing provided the conditions were abated within the proposed 30 days.

Howard Brown, the hearing officer, admitted the county’s exhibits into evidence, heard sworn testimony from both sides and told the parties he would issue a written order “very quickly” and that a copy would be provided to the Riffles in the next day or two. No final adjudicative order was issued on the record at the close of the hearing; Brown said he would prepare and issue the order after the hearing.

Next steps: the county agreed to email the supplemental photos and the relief request to the hearing officer and to the Riffles. The hearing record shows multiple prior inspections and notices dating to April and May 2024 and a documented inspection on Dec. 18, 2024; the county reported a fresh inspection in March 2025 that showed only minor improvement.