County seeks fines in recall hearing over Church of Common Good’s alleged unpermitted RV dwelling

A Coconino County hearing officer took under advisement evidence on July 9 in a recall hearing about whether the Church of Common Good complied with a July 14, 2025 zoning order that found unpermitted RV occupancy and unscreened outdoor storage.

The county’s compliance manager, Mark Stento, told Hearing Officer Howard Brown that the county has narrowed its request to sanctions tied to continued RV occupancy. Stento said the county received a written statement from the respondent on March 31, 2026, acknowledging that “only 1 RV is occupied,” staff observed RVs on the property during a May 14, 2026 inspection (including one with slide-outs extended), and online listings for the parcel advertised overnight RV sites during the same period. Based on that record, the county asked Brown to impose a civil sanction of $20 per day beginning April 1, 2026, up to the $1,500 cap set in the 07/14/2025 order.

Pastor Andrew Stevens, who testified for the Church of Common Good, disputed that compliance was possible. Stevens said the county’s permit-instruction document (zoning permit time frames, effective 12/11/2019) states that “all open zoning violations shall be resolved prior to the issuance of a permit,” creating what he called a “catch-22” in which the church cannot obtain a permit because a violation remains open but cannot resolve the violation without a permit. Stevens also argued the county had been selectively enforcing zoning rules, pointed to other permitted retreat or RV uses in the county, and said he had sought accommodations for his adult daughter, whom he described as having Level 3 autism and requiring round-the-clock care.

“In the county’s own policy…all open zoning violations shall be resolved prior to the issuance of a permit,” Pastor Andrew Stevens said during his testimony, asserting that policy prevented the church from obtaining the permits that would resolve the cited issue. He asked the hearing officer to find compliance impossible and dismiss the matter.

Stento responded that the county had, in practice, approved temporary RV permits intended to achieve compliance and that the church submitted a 120-day temporary use permit application on April 2, 2025 that was not completed because the $112 fee was not paid; the planner later canceled that application. Stento told the hearing officer the county was not asking reconsideration of the July 2025 finding that at least one unpermitted RV had been used as a dwelling; the limited question was whether the respondent achieved compliance by the August 13, 2025 deadline and thereafter.

Stevens raised additional practical obstacles he says made compliance impossible: he alleged local suppliers and equipment renters refused to deliver or work on the property because of road condition or access issues, and he said BNSF railroad signage blocked access along a right of way. He argued those factors, plus what he called uneven county treatment, left the church with no realistic path to compliance without county cooperation.

The hearing officer sustained a respondent objection to two county exhibits that were disclosed the day before the hearing and excluded them under the county rule requiring exhibit disclosure at least 10 days in advance; he permitted live testimony. Both parties made closing arguments. The county requested fines for continuing RV-occupancy noncompliance from April 1, 2026, calculating that the $1,500 cap would have been reached by June 14, 2026 at $20 per day. Stevens asked for dismissal on impossibility and civil-rights grounds and said the church will preserve federal claims for later litigation.

Hearing Officer Howard Brown closed the hearing, said he would take the matter under advisement and issue a written order, and asked the clerk to deliver a recording of the proceeding. No sanctions were imposed at the hearing.

What happens next: Brown will issue a written decision after reviewing the record. If he finds continuing noncompliance and imposes the sanctions the county requested, the county also asked that the matter be forwarded to the county attorney for consideration of further action.