The Coconino County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday denied an appeal by multiple adjacent landowners and upheld the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval of a conditional use permit to allow a small-scale horse-boarding operation on a 12-acre G-zoned parcel at 22770 Fox Ranch Road.

The applicant, represented by attorney Jordan Greenman, said the request (CUP 25-022) seeks permission for up to 12 boarded horses in existing movable stalls and a 150-by-250-foot outdoor arena. "There are no new structures proposed," Greenman said. He described the proposed operation as a family-run "mom-and-pop" stable with limited hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.), drop-off by appointment, weekly manure removal and routine water hauling.

Appellant Paul Mooney, representing six neighboring landowners, urged the board to reverse the approval, citing road and bridge safety, repeated flooding, possible trespass across a conservation easement and liability risks for neighbors who maintain a private access corridor. Mooney said neighbors had jointly filed the appeal and provided letters describing frequent flooding that submerged the single-lane bridge and argued the parcel's access crosses an NRCS-held conservation easement that limits industrial or commercial activity.

County staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission found the request met the four statutory findings for a CUP: the use is consistent with G zoning's rural/agricultural purpose, will not be detrimental to public health/safety/welfare subject to conditions, complies with land-use regulations and aligns with the comprehensive plan. Staff recommended approval with five conditions addressing manure management, a five-year permit term, an amended site plan, setbacks and screening.

Supervisor Tammy Ontiveros moved to uphold the commission and deny the appeal with a single modification: require ten evergreen trees for screening rather than the originally suggested gambel oak. Supervisor Lena Fowler seconded the motion. The board voted 4-0 in favor; Supervisor Jeronimo Vasquez was not present for the vote.

What the decision does and does not do: The board's action affirms the county permit and its conditions; it does not adjudicate private easement rights or preclude private litigation. Several neighbors said those civil matters remain potential subjects for NRCS inquiry or private legal actions.