The Pinal County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to remand two dog kennel special use permits back to the Planning and Zoning Commission during their May 28, 2025 meeting after staff amended the stipulations following the original commission recommendation. Both cases will return to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 19 before coming back to the Board of Supervisors on July 2.
The board considered special use permits for two German Shepherd breeding operations owned by family members at separate properties in the Maricopa area. Staff had substantially revised the stipulations after the Planning and Zoning Commission’s original recommendations to address neighbor concerns, including adding fence requirements and additional dog limitations. The wholesale changes prompted supervisors to question the process.
Property History and Operations
The two properties represent a family breeding operation that spans decades and multiple locations. The Val Vista Road property at 50956 West Val Vista Road has operated as a commercial kennel for 31 years under owner Ranelle Abbott. The Jean Drive property at 49641 West Jean Drive has operated for nine years under owner Shell Abbott, who is Ranelle’s daughter.
Jason Sanks, the land use planner representing both applicants, explained the relationship between the properties during his presentation. “Ranelle had had a conversation with county staff in the mid-2000s of her Val Vista property, where she’s been doing the dog breeding since ’94. And then Shell took on the business, and she lives two and a half miles away,” Sanks said. “That is why you have two separate applications, because the lots are not contiguous. The mom and the daughter team live two and a half miles apart, but they’re still in the Thunderbird Farms, Papago Buttes area out by Maricopa.”
The properties operate as connected businesses, with breeding females moving between locations. Shell Abbott explained that pregnant dogs are bred at her Jean Drive property but move to the Val Vista location for whelping and puppy raising. “I breed, so all the dogs that I have are breeding dogs,” Shell Abbott said. “There would be a transition of my females that are bred on my property and then are whelped and then raised on my mom’s property.”
Stipulations and Amendments
Both properties faced similar proposed stipulations, with some key differences. Common stipulations included limiting breeding dogs to seven adults, requiring dogs to be housed in kennels by 9 p.m., implementing noise mitigation measures, and maintaining valid county animal control licenses.
The Jean Drive property faced an additional requirement for fence construction along the neighbor’s property line. Patrick Zaia-Roberts, Senior Planner, explained that a seven-foot metal and wood fence must be “constructed by the property owner in accordance with any building setback standards in the Pinal County Development Services Code and completed within four months of the approval of the SUP along the property line abutting their neighbor’s property.”
Concerns About Amended Stipulations
Chairman Stephen Miller expressed significant concern about the wholesale changes to stipulations after the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation. “The wholesale change of the stipulations were not something you see very often. Matter of fact, I can’t even remember ever seeing it before,” Miller said.
When asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission knew about the new stipulations, Senior Planner Patrick Zaia-Roberts confirmed they did not. “The 10 stipulations, no. They had approved the 12 stipulations, I believe,” Zaia-Roberts said.
Miller continued his concern: “That kind of bothers me because I think that the stipulations are the big deal and I don’t know how they would have felt about these new stipulations.” He later added, “Almost seems like that should have gone back to P&Z, with that many stipulation changes.”
Following Supervisor Goodman’s suggestion to discuss the stipulations in more detail, the board went into executive session during the Jean Drive kennel discussion before returning to consider the applications.
Dog Number Limitations and Enforcement
Supervisor Jeff Serdy raised questions about the seven-dog limit and enforcement mechanisms. “So this would be limited to seven adult dogs. Do we know how many there are now? Aren’t there way more than that?” Serdy asked.
Zaia-Roberts responded that he believed the last count was “30 total, but we can clarify that with the owner.” When Serdy asked about enforcement, Zaia-Roberts explained it would be “a collaborative effort between Animal Control and Code Compliance to ensure adherence to the stipulations.”
The discussion revealed ambiguity in the stipulation language. Vice-Chairman Jeff McClure noted that limiting breeding dogs to seven “does not put a limit on the number of dogs that could be on the property.” Zaia-Roberts acknowledged the concern, saying “The interpretation of that could be construed in multiple different ways.”
Shell Abbott clarified her current situation: “So all the dogs that I have are breeding dogs. Every now and again, somebody will have a dog that they’re unable to take care of… I take those dogs back. Those would then be non-breeding dogs, and I hold them until I can find them a good home.”
Tax Compliance Questions
Supervisor Serdy also questioned the business’s tax compliance during his examination. “So I believe the representative said that… you do have a TPT license and when sales are made they do pay the monthly tax,” Serdy asked.
Shell Abbott confirmed her tax obligations: “So I have to log monthly if I make a sale or if I don’t make a sale with the amount that I pay, or that I’ve been paid. And then I pay out of that for city and then county. And then annually, I pay my state and federal.”
Serdy noted this as an important compliance issue, telling staff: “So note to staff, we do need to pay attention to that on businesses that aren’t the norm like this. I mean, obviously when you have a retail like you’re selling a T-shirt, you know to collect taxes. But that it happens on every item like this.”
Part of Larger County Initiative
Both properties were among five similar existing commercial kennels proposed before the Planning and Zoning Commission for special use permit action during the January 18, 2024 meeting. This represents a broader county effort to bring existing kennel operations into compliance with current zoning requirements.
A previous kennel case involving Jon and Jenny Mott’s Australian Shepherd breeding operation was approved by the Board of Supervisors in a 3-2 vote at their May 7 meeting. The Mott case faced similar issues regarding long-standing operations seeking retroactive permits and neighbor opposition.
Opposition and Support Dynamics
The level of public response varied significantly between the initial staff reports and updated counts provided at the hearing. According to the original presentations, the Jean Drive property initially received two letters of opposition and one letter of support, while the Val Vista property received no letters of opposition or support.
However, Patrick Zaia-Roberts provided updated numbers during the hearing reflecting additional correspondence received between the original staff report and the hearing date. For the Jean Drive property, staff had received nine letters of support and 37 letters of opposition. The Val Vista property received eight letters of support and 35 letters of opposition.
Sanks disputed the scale of neighborhood opposition, particularly regarding the Jean Drive property. “There’s this idea of a petition or 37 neighbors in opposition. They don’t even have 37 neighbors. A lot of the people in the initial petition, eight of the 10 don’t even live within range of this property,” Sanks said. “There’s a difference between neighbors and opposition and people just signing petitions.”
Sanks characterized the situation as primarily involving one neighbor dispute. “What we have is a neighbor dispute. We have one neighbor that’s in opposition to the Abbotts, and that’s the gentleman that lives to the east,” Sanks said, referring to the Jean Drive property.
He described the Abbotts’ efforts to address concerns: “They’re offering to build that fence and continue it along to both screen their view of Mr. Chad’s property, as well as provide screening to their own property for Chad and his wife and children.”
Permitting Confusion and Historical Context
Sanks explained that the need for special use permits was unclear when the operations began. “It was unbeknownst to both Ranelle and Shell that they needed a special use permit. And in fact, in the mid-2000s, it wasn’t required,” Sanks said.
The residential versus commercial permitting question created additional complexity. Shell Abbott explained her understanding when she obtained her kennel permit: “When we went to Zoning, we told ’em exactly what we were doing, that we were building a kennel for our dogs. And they said, ‘As long as you don’t have other people’s dogs, you’re not boarding, you’re not training, then it would still be a personal kennel and it would not need commercial zoning.'”
Supervisor Vitiello’s Investigation
Supervisor Rich Vitiello conducted his own investigation of both properties and raised several concerns during the hearing. “There’s 15 complaints that have happened that have been called into Animal Control. There’s been videos and myself driven by numerous times, and I have seen the dogs run up and down, barking at all times,” Vitiello said.
He questioned the commercial versus non-commercial permit status: “You tell me you have seven that are your personal, and then I spoke with Jason on the phone, and he had mentioned to me that there’s seven, and then every once in a while, you bring over some other dogs. And they’re kinda like your dogs. They’re either kinda like my dogs or it’s a business.”
Vitiello also noted permit compliance issues: “The 30 dogs, when I heard their seven dogs, signing of the kennel license and saying it’s non-commercial, which means you can’t have business on it.”
Shell Abbott responded to address his concerns about the non-commercial permit: “For the kennel permit, when we went to Zoning, we told ’em exactly what we were doing, that we were building a kennel for our dogs… That’s what we were told. I also don’t sell any of my dogs. I sell the puppies, which are not raised there.”
Shell Abbott’s Property Details
Shell Abbott provided extensive details about her operation during questioning. Regarding her current dog count, she said: “Under my current kennel license, I can’t have more than 12 dogs… I wouldn’t do that. Number one, it would be no benefit to me to have dogs that aren’t part of my breeding program. And number two, I’m still held to Pinal County Animal Care and Control in the number of dogs that I have.”
She described her kennel’s noise mitigation features: “Inside the kennel I have four-by-four fences that only hold 12 dogs… every dog has an individual [space]. It is completely insulated. It’s built two-by-six, so it’s fully insulated and enclosed.”
Regarding property access for dogs, Abbott explained: “I have a 75-by-75-foot turnout, another 75-by-75-foot turnout, and then I have my entire property. So there’s essentially three turnout locations that I can turn them out in.”
County Requirements and Compliance
Supervisor Mike Goodman questioned whether Shell Abbott was informed about special use permit requirements during her initial permitting process. “Were you informed by any county employee, by Animal Control, that you needed some type of special use permit at that time?” Goodman asked.
Abbott responded: “When I was getting my federal license, the FDA didn’t say anything about it. When I got my kennel permit when I… for my zoning, they didn’t say anything about it. When I went to Pinal County Animal Care and Control, nothing was said at that time either.”
Animal Control Director Testimony
Audra Michael, Director of Animal Control, clarified the complaint numbers during her testimony regarding the Jean Drive property specifically. When Vitiello referenced 15 complaints, Michael corrected: “We went back and looked to complaints, to how many, and we do not have 15 on both properties combined… from what I understand, we did get a barking complaint in 2017. We got one in 2018, and that was it since then that we have on record.”
Regarding special use permit requirements, Michael explained the department’s evolving understanding: “We were really not sure how SUPs work. We never really thought to tell them that they needed an SUP until about the last few years… I do believe when Mr. Billingsley took over as Director, I think that’s when we started looking into getting SUPs.”
Goodman responded: “That helps with some of the confusion, especially when it comes to the legality of what they’re doing. I know that’s been a big issue for Supervisor Vitiello is that you’re operating illegally.”
Michael provided her assessment of the Abbott operations: “As for us going out and doing inspections, they’ve passed every time. We haven’t had any issues with them. We haven’t had any dogs at large calls or anything like that… I haven’t found anything wrong with theirs, as opposed to any kind of violations with our agency.”
She compared the Abbotts to other operations: “Well, in our business, there are a lot of backyard breeders and there are a lot of people running illegal kennels that won’t let us on the property, don’t properly go about through the USDA or federal or AKC. As much as I don’t really care for breeders, if they’re going to be a breeder and they’re going to be a reputable one, then the Abbotts and the Motts were not what I would call illegal kennel breeders. They are actually doing what they’re supposed to be doing. And that’s just from what I see daily.”
Neighbor Concerns
Katie and Chad Burr, who live adjacent to the Jean Drive property, spoke against the permit during the public hearing. Katie Burr, who has lived on her property for 24 years, described the impact on her family’s use of their land.
“We avoid 625 feet of our backyard with this property because we are not safe. On the property line, there’s a four-foot wire fence, and offset from that, there’s a non-compliant six-foot sheet metal and OSB board fence that amplifies the sound of the barking and does not offer appropriate protection against escape,” Katie Burr said.
Chad Burr raised safety concerns about the breed: “German Shepherds are the number three leading in bites and attacks in the US and this is based on studies posted in Forbes and topdogtips.com… German Shepherds are natural guard dogs and their natural instinct is to protect their land and people.”
Katie Burr expressed concerns about the long-term implications: “If this SUP passes, it will live on indefinitely, because it is attached to the land rather than the business or applicant. If this property is sold, the buyers will be able to continue this breeding kennel, effectively changing the zoning for the property forever.”
Broader Community Opposition
Several residents who don’t live near the properties spoke in opposition, citing concerns about precedent and community impact. General concerns about dog kennels prompted some residents to voice opposition even though the Val Vista property has operated for over three decades and the Jean Drive property for nine years.
Rebecca Thuer, who lives one street away from the Mott kennel in San Tan Valley, read a statement opposing both permits on behalf of another family, describing issues including “animals regularly escaping from the property and roaming the streets” and “persistent noise disturbances due to continual barking from the dogs on the property.”
Future Proceedings
Both cases will return to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 19, 2025, where commissioners will review the amended stipulations before making new recommendations. The cases will then return to the Board of Supervisors on July 2, 2025, for final consideration.
The public hearings remain open, allowing additional testimony at future meetings. Jason Sanks indicated the applicants would be willing to accept additional stipulations, including one that would terminate the special use permits if the properties are sold.
The Planning and Zoning Commission had originally recommended approval of the Jean Drive permit by a 9-1 vote and the Val Vista permit by a 10-0 vote, both with 12 stipulations. Vice-Chairman McClure made the motion to remand both cases, stating his respect for the Planning and Zoning Commission’s role in reviewing stipulations. The board’s 4-1 votes on both items, with Supervisor Vitiello dissenting, reflected concerns about the substantial changes made to the stipulations after the commission’s original recommendations.
