Kennel Permit Approved as CC&R Lawsuit Challenges Home-Based Businesses

Image
Mott residence. [Source: Mott Narrative to Board]

The Pinal County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to approve a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a commercial kennel operation in San Tan Valley at their May 7 meeting, allowing a breeding business that has operated on the property since 2006 to continue legally despite opposition from some neighbors and an ongoing civil lawsuit.

The permit application, filed by Jon and Jenny Mott for their Australian Shepherd breeding operation on Kennedy Drive, passed with Chairman Stephen Miller, Vice-Chairman Jeff McClure, and Supervisor Mike Goodman voting in favor. Supervisors Jeff Serdy and Rich Vitiello voted against the measure.

Image Not Found
General location of Mott Property. [Source: Pinal County]

Jon Mott, who serves on the local irrigation board, testified that his wife has been breeding Australian Shepherds for nearly 20 years as part of their ranch operations.

The approval follows a March 20 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that recommended approval by a 7-3 vote. Both hearings highlighted tensions between property rights, code compliance, and community covenants.

Country Mini Farms: A Neighborhood in Transition

The Motts purchased their 3.4-acre property in Country Mini Farms in 2006. According to Jon Mott’s testimony, his wife Jenny is a fifth-generation farmer whose family has deep agricultural roots in Arizona, including Pinal County. Jenny has been involved in breeding animals throughout her life, continuing this tradition with Australian Shepherds since 1999.

Image Not Found
Aerial view of Mott property. Queen Creek limit is shaded in purple on the left. [Source: Pinal County]

During the hearing, Mott noted that the neighborhood already contains multiple businesses. When Vice-Chairman McClure asked about other businesses in the area, Mott confirmed the presence of three churches and an A&P Nursery in the neighborhood.

“We’ve got an animal sanctuary down the road from us that has 11 pigs at least,” Mott testified during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. “Do I want her to go? No, I love it. I love the fact that she’s down there. I think that’s what our neighborhood should be.”

When questioned about traffic impact, Mott estimated his dog breeding operation generates minimal visits.

“If we sell 40 puppies in a year, we’re going to have 40, maybe 80 visits in a year,” Mott said.

Supervisor Goodman noted that neighbors with large families likely generate more traffic, stating, “I know for a fact your neighbor across the street, they’ve got 10 kids, and I know they probably get a lot more traffic than just that right there alone, just because of their kids.”

The Country Mini Farms community has been established since 1975, according to records for the Country Farms Irrigation and Management organization. It is governed by Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) prohibiting commercial businesses. The area has evolved significantly over the decades, with multiple properties operating businesses despite these restrictions.

SUP Application Details and Zoning Requirements

Patrick Zaia-Roberts, Senior Planner for Pinal County, presented the SUP application to the board. The property is zoned Suburban Ranch (SR), which doesn’t specifically permit commercial kennels but allows for special use permits through a discretionary process.

“The property is located amongst other properties with rural and agricultural uses and animal husbandry operations,” Zaia-Roberts explained. “The commercial kennel use is existing and does not present an impact to public health, safety, and welfare in this location.”

When Vice-Chairman McClure questioned whether the kennel was permitted in SR zoning, Zaia-Roberts explained the special use permit process.

“Specifically, we call it sub-category O. It’s other uses that the Planning and Zoning Commission deems appropriate,” Zaia-Roberts said. “It’s a category we seldom utilize just because of the broad nature of what that could entail.”

The application includes 12 stipulations including: the permit binding to the land upon approval, securing all required federal, state, county, and local regulatory approvals, maintaining a commercial kennel license from Animal Control, submitting a site plan within one year, limiting operations to breeding only, meeting lighting zone requirements, prohibiting signage, meeting fire code requirements, obtaining dust registration permits, conforming to earthmoving activity requirements, and possible requirements for traffic impact and drainage reports.

Chairman Miller expressed concern about the final three stipulations related to traffic impact statements and drainage requirements, noting: “I can tell you, those last three can be difficult. This subdivision was built at a time that a lot of these requirements were not implemented, which now you’re gonna have to bring it up to the current codes, which could be your drainage and your traffic and all those types of things.”

The Civil Lawsuit and CC&R Enforcement

Ongoing civil litigation was referenced repeatedly during the hearing, including a lawsuit against Jon and Jenny Mott, J&M Big Sky LLC, Jack Reed, Stephen Lentz, and John and Shiny Shibu. Attorney Michael Hedrick, who stated “I do represent Rebecca Thuer, Mark Linder in lawsuits pending here in Pinal County,” argued that the Motts’ operation violates the community’s CC&Rs.

“The CC&Rs establish vested rights,” Hedrick told the board. “People buy into a community with CC&Rs, they’re buying into those rules. Jon Mott bought into those rules in 2006.”

According to documents, the lawsuit alleges the Motts are operating a prohibited business in violation of CC&Rs, which designate the lots as “residential lots” where “no business of any kind or character whatever shall be conducted in or from any building on said lots.”

The lawsuit could potentially affect numerous other businesses operating in the community. During the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, multiple references were made to other businesses that could be impacted.

Jack Reed, who has served on the community board, testified at the Planning and Zoning hearing: “A&P Nursery’s been in, we’ve got three churches, schools… One of the churches has been there since 2000, one since ’93, I believe.”

According to legal documents, the lawsuit specifically names several other defendants including:

  • J&M Big Sky LLC, alleged to be operating a prohibited turf business
  • John and Shiny Shibu, alleged to be operating a paving business
  • Jack Reed and Stephen Lentz, elected board members accused of failing to enforce CC&Rs

Attorney Hedrick claimed during the Planning and Zoning hearing that the CC&Rs are being systematically undermined by various property owners in the community.

Carlos Thome, a community resident, testified during the Planning and Zoning hearing about the broader implications: “These CC&Rs were made in 1970. There is rules about not having two houses on the same property. There’s people having that. I think there is some paragraph that says no church on the area or no schools. There’s schools and there’s church.”

Vice-Chairman McClure drew a clear distinction between the board’s responsibilities and the civil dispute.

“CC&Rs is not the issue. Code compliance is at issue, but really it’s a civil issue,” McClure noted. “And the noise would be a PCSO issue, which is also not us.”

Vice-Chairman McClure asked about the relationship between the civil lawsuit and the SUP. Zaia-Roberts explained that the two processes were separate and not connected to each other. When McClure pursued the legal question further, County Attorney Brad Miller advised that such discussion would require an executive session to avoid waiving attorney-client privilege, but did not contradict the assessment that the civil and administrative processes were separate matters.

Public Opposition and Support

According to Zaia-Roberts, the county received 18 letters of opposition and 36 letters of support for the application. Four neighbors spoke in opposition and six spoke in support at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in March.

Of particular significance, Patrick Zaia-Roberts confirmed that none of the immediate neighbors within the 600-foot notification radius had submitted letters of opposition. When Supervisor Goodman asked, “In regards to the radius that you had circled, how many of those neighbors actually complained or in opposition?” Zaia-Roberts responded, “None of them.”

Image Not Found
Area of notification around the Mott property. [Source: Pinal County]

At the Board of Supervisors hearing, several opponents voiced concerns about the operation, including Liz Johnson who does not live near the property, read a statement from Mark Linder claiming 95% of neighborhood code violation reports came from residents other than himself. Linder is one of the plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the Motts.

Ayla Linder, Mark Linder’s daughter, alleged that Jon Mott was “implanting himself into our HOA board and refusing to enforce the covenants” to protect his own business interests.

Rebecca Thuer, who identified herself as living one street away from the Motts and is also a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the board, expressed concerns about noise and community impact.

“Just recently, I had all my fourth grade families over to my house at the end of the year party last week, like I’ve done for the past 24 years,” Thuer said. “They all would want to live in a place like mine. What they don’t know is what has had been done to keeping it this way.”

In contrast, several residents spoke in favor of the Motts at the Planning and Zoning hearing. Terri D’Amato, who lives directly behind the Motts’ property in the Ovation neighborhood, testified: “My husband and I sit on our patio every single night because we’re from Illinois and we can’t believe that it is January and we’re still outside in shorts. We do not hear any dogs barking. I have never been woken up, I have never been bothered.”

Jason Riggs, another community resident, testified to the Planning and Zoning Commission about the broader context: “Our CC&Rs are an absolute mess. They proscribe churches and schools. We have the A&P Nursery within our community. They have a thriving retail business, and I live two doors down from them and they don’t hurt me in any way, shape or form.”

Attorney Hedrick alleged that the Motts operated a prohibited dog and horse breeding business in violation of the CC&Rs, and refused to cease operations after being notified. He claimed the dispute intensified in 2016 when “one of his religious faith friends wanted to buy two lots within the community, seven acres, and build a church and a sports facility.”

Supervisors Divided on Approval

During deliberations, the supervisors expressed differing views on approval.

Supervisor Serdy focused on tax compliance issues, asking whether sales tax was being collected on puppies sold. Mott admitted he does not collect sales tax but does report income to the IRS.

“We do not collect sales tax. We do pay our taxes to the IRS. We file taxes every year with them,” Mott explained. “My understanding is farm animals are exempt, but maybe I’m wrong. I’ll have to look into it.”

“If you go to the mall and you go to the puppy store there, you pay,” Serdy noted, before voting against the permit.

Supervisor Vitiello questioned the precedent of approving operations that had been non-compliant for years.

“I guess the question is, is bad behavior approvable?” Vitiello asked. “I don’t want to set a precedence for other businesses to think that we can run for 19, 20, whatever the amount of years are, and then the next thing you know, we find out that everybody’s gonna be standing here before us doing the exact same thing.”

Supervisor Goodman, who represents the district containing the property, supported approval. He noted many residents run home-based businesses, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic.

“2020 was a big time for a lot of us. You know, we weren’t able to go to work anymore. There was a lot of people who went home to do their employment, to do their work, to run their offices out of their homes,” Goodman said. “I know we use the word commercial, and I think it’s very loosely how we use it, and it implies that it’s a big operation. When in reality, it’s some small business that’s being operated within this community.”

Vice-Chairman McClure supported approval based on the board’s limited jurisdiction, stating, “Civil matter is not our issue.”

The 3-2 vote approved the Special Use Permit with all 12 stipulations, allowing the Motts to continue their breeding operation legally while the civil lawsuit proceeds independently through the courts.

Future Implications

With the SUP approved, the Motts must now complete the stipulated requirements, including obtaining a commercial kennel license from Pinal County Animal Control and submitting a site plan application within one year.

While county officials stated the civil lawsuit over CC&R enforcement is separate from the land use permit, the outcome of the case could still impact the Motts’ ability to operate, depending on the court’s findings.

The case highlights tensions in rural communities experiencing transition, particularly regarding home-based businesses and interpretation of decades-old covenants in the context of modern county regulations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Board Approves Kennel Permit Amid Civil Lawsuit Concerns