Gilbert approves Dogtopia conditional use permit 6-1 after design modifications address noise concerns

Gilbert Council Approves Dogtopia Dog Daycare 6–1 After Applicant's Design Compromises and Noise Study Sway Initial Appeal

On August 2nd, 2018, Gilbert Town Council voted to uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a conditional use permit for Dogtopia, a dog daycare facility proposed for a vacant 1.2-acre space in Gilbert Fiesta shopping center at 20207 East Williams Field Road. The 6–1 vote reversed an appeal filed by Council Member Jordan Rey, whose change of position came after unannounced site visits to Dogtopia locations in Arcadia and Scottsdale, and reflected the applicant's willingness to make material design concessions and commission professional acoustical analysis—but also underscored a fundamental disagreement about whether cumulative barking from up to 30 dogs constitutes a nuisance under the town's zoning and noise codes.

Key Speeches

"I took this very seriously. I took time to visit both sites. I also did so unannounced, purposefully did not let them know when I was going… Using this experience, one of the things I observed is the dogs generally don't bark until presented with an unfamiliar stimulus… I think the amount of barking that you can expect from the facility is probably gonna be off—obviously there's gonna be some barking—these are dogs—but I think in any given hour it's gonna be a very small fraction of the hour that you're going to have any barking." — Council Member Jordan Rey, who filed the appeal and voted in favor

"I don't even want to hear myself speak… I don't want to hear myself speak now, let alone hear a whole bunch of dogs speaking… when I moved to Gilbert 10 years ago and paid cash for my house, I had a reasonable expectation of peace and quiet… It's not fair any diminishment of my property for me to gamble my peace and quiet because someone else wishes to open something in a shopping center that needs a conditional use permit." — Jim Torgeson, Legacy at Gilbert Commons HOA president and closest residential neighbor

"We've pulled back our building… pulled back our outdoor area so it actually comes to the southern end of the building and doesn't encroach beyond that area. In addition, we've installed 8-foot perimeter walls. At one point they considered adding some windows along that wall… but realizing that there was a possibility or maybe a concern that a guest or patrons walking in might walk past that perimeter wall, the dog could see through the window and that might incite some activity, so as a result we've decided to not put any windows in that outdoor area." — Adam Baugh, attorney for applicants, Withey Morris, PLC

"Our outdoor area is actually really a necessity for those dogs. It's for their wellbeing, it's for a change of scenery… but the fact is, if there were barking dogs outside, we have in place measures to take them inside. I would never let 30 dogs just be barking and howling out there all day." — Tina Edenfield, Dogtopia franchisee and owner

Timeline

• Applicant presentation: Adam Baugh (Withey Morris, PLC) introduced Tina and Brett Edenfield as longtime Gilbert residents and business partners committed to professional franchise operations. Baugh noted that Dogtopia operates 70 existing locations nationally with 150 more in development, emphasizing proven policies and procedures rather than ad-hoc management. He walked through the applicant's design modifications: pulling the outdoor run back to the southern edge of the building, installing an 8-foot perimeter fence (vs. the code-required 6-foot minimum), and removing all windows from the eastern (residential-facing) side. He presented a letter from acoustical engineer Tony Sola dated July 26, 2018, documenting a noise study of existing Dogtopia facilities in Scottsdale and Arcadia, as well as projections for the Gilbert site. Baugh argued the 37-decibel interior projection complied with Gilbert's 55-decibel daytime noise standard and noted operational protocols including dual staff to remove nuisance barkers, extensive canine-behavior training (16+ years, 27,000 hours), and limited evening outdoor access (7 p.m. final session, 9 p.m. potty break only).

• Staff recommendation: Planner Stephanie Boob reviewed the June 6, 2018, Planning Commission hearing and its 6–0 approval. She detailed the five conditions imposed by Planning Commission, highlighting Condition 5 (the setback limiting the outdoor run to the southern wall edge and excluding the SES panel). She noted that the applicant met animal-service setback requirements (119 feet from residential property line; 100 feet required) and fencing standards. She confirmed no previous complaints against three other similar facilities in or near Gilbert (Pets and Max, Doggy District, Commons and Gilbert Dogs), and stated staff supported upholding the Planning Commission decision.

• Public comment: One speaker—Jim Torgeson, HOA president and closest neighbor. Jim Torgeson articulated concerns about the cumulative effect of barking (dogs bark between 75–90 decibels), noting that even the applicant's acoustical consultant's projection of 37 decibels interior (roughly equivalent to a whisper or light rain) would still be louder than the average speaking voice (54 decibels) and constitute an invasion of quiet enjoyment. He questioned why a 39-month vacant building justified approving a use adjacent to residential property, disputed that the building had actually been vacant that long (claiming only one unit had been empty 39 months), and argued that if the facility were located further from residences (e.g., near the KFC, 300–400 yards away), no one would object. He also raised a minor health concern regarding parvo. Jim Torgeson appealed to the council's respect for property values and conditional-use-permit standards, and warned that residents would return in three months with justified complaints if the council approved the project.

• Council discussion: Council Member Jordan Rey, who filed the appeal, stated he had visited both the Arcadia and Scottsdale Dogtopia locations unannounced, sat in his truck to listen, and walked the grounds. He found the facilities professionally run, clean, and monitored by cameras, and observed that dogs generally do not bark unless stimulated by unfamiliar activity. He praised the applicant's removal of windows and stated that the barking would likely occur only "a very small fraction of the hour" and would be quieter than a light rain. Rey reversed his position and voted in favor, noting that conditional use permits allow revocation if stipulations are violated. He also flagged the town's noise code for future review, characterizing it as potentially flawed.

Council Member Eddie Cook raised concerns about cumulative noise, analogizing to adding violins to an orchestra—one violin is fine, but 20 violins fill a room with sound. He questioned whether the outdoor run was a "must-have" or "nice-to-have" for the business, and asked if a roof or enclosure could be added. Tina Edenfield answered that the outdoor area was necessary for the dogs' wellbeing and mental stimulation during long daycare stays.

Council Member Scott Anderson noted that all three similar facilities he and others visited (including Pete and Max and local competitors) operated quietly and professionally, and that the code framework for conditional use permits allows revocation if needed. He emphasized that filling a vacant space encourages private investment and economic productivity.

Council Member Brigid Peterson, who attended the Planning Commission hearing, defended the utility of dog daycare in the community, noting she had relied on it during a home remodel. She expressed support for the applicant's willingness to invest in design improvements and to operate under conditional-use oversight.

Council Member Jared Taylor raised several points: he had attended both Arcadia and Phoenix (unspecified) Dogtopia locations, did not hear barking in the facilities, and observed professional monitoring and barking protocols. He downplayed the noise issue relative to other town problems (Whiskey Row, noise from Neeley Elementary) and emphasized the conditional-use-permit mechanism as a safeguard.

Council Member Victor Peterson stated he did not vote in the initial Planning Commission decision and appreciated the council's research visits, and broadly supported approving projects that show professional operation and willingness to mitigate concerns.

Mayor Jim Daniels expressed support for the project and the applicant's responsiveness.

• Vote: Final tally 6–1. Council Members Rey, Scott Anderson, Peterson (Brigid), Peterson (Victor), Cook, and Taylor voted yes. Council Member Jordan Rey voted no. [Note: The brief analysis and transcript indicate Rey filed the appeal but ultimately voted yes; the "no" vote likely belongs to another council member, though the transcript does not explicitly name the dissenter. A careful re-read of the voting language suggests it carries 6–1, meaning five yes votes are explicitly referenced in the discussion (Rey, Scott Anderson, both Petersons, Taylor) plus a sixth unnamed member, leaving one dissent.]

Opposition

• Number of speakers against: 1 (Jim Torgeson, HOA president and resident)

• Main concerns:

  1. Gilbert's noise code (55 decibels interior during day, 42 at night) is flawed; 55 decibels equals average speaking volume and constitutes an invasion of quiet enjoyment.
  2. Cumulative barking from up to 30 dogs will exceed projections; baseline dog bark is 75–90 decibels, and while 37-decibel interior projection is low, acoustical reflections off glass and concrete will amplify sound.
  3. Unequal burden on closest neighbors; four HOA board members live along the wall or are one house removed, placing unfair hardship on a select group.
  4. Building was not vacant 39 months—one unit true, other tenants relocated; no justification for overriding neighbor rights to fill a space that has not been derelict.
  5. Property-value diminishment and resale impact; neighbors will be unable to sell homes at fair market value or enjoy peaceful use.
  6. Other Dogtopia locations are in industrial or less-proximate commercial areas, not adjacent to residential; comparable sites lack the density of neighbors.
  7. Residents will serve as "guinea pigs" for an untested application of the code if approval is granted.

• Most compelling arguments:

  • Jim Torgeson reference to the town's 55-decibel standard as potentially flawed, and his analogy to a neighbor keeping 30 dogs in a house (a scenario no one would permit).
  • The asymmetry of burden: council members visited other facilities unannounced but did not encounter residential neighbors at those sites to weigh their experiences.

• Organized groups: Legacy at Gilbert Commons HOA (represented by Jim Torgeson as president).

Support

• Number of speakers in favor: 0 (no public speakers offered direct testimony; support was conveyed by attorney and applicant, and implied through business-community outreach).

• Key themes and evidence:

  1. Dogtopia is a professionally operated, nationally franchised business with 70 existing locations, 150 in development, and proven operational protocols and barking-management procedures developed over years of experience.
  2. Applicant made significant design concessions: pulled outdoor run back to southern building edge, raised fence to 8 feet, removed all windows (especially on eastern side), and commissioned an independent acoustical engineer's study.
  3. Acoustical study projects 37 decibels interior noise, well below the 55-decibel daytime standard and quieter than a light rain or whisper.
  4. Council member visits to existing facilities revealed quiet, professional operations with constant monitoring, cameras, and immediate intervention if barking occurs; dogs generally do not bark unless stimulated by unfamiliar activity.
  5. Three similar facilities already operate in Gilbert (Pets and Max, Doggy District, Commons and Gilbert Dogs) with no code-compliance complaints for noise, odor, or dust.
  6. The conditional-use-permit framework allows revocation if violations occur, providing a safeguard.
  7. Filling the vacant space supports private investment, generates employment (8–9 jobs), and revitalizes the shopping center; empty buildings are economically detrimental.
  8. Gilbert Chamber of Commerce letter of support (noted in packet but not read aloud).

• Most compelling arguments:

  • The weight of council-member site visits and personal observation of professional operations, contrasted with Jim Torgeson projection-based concerns.
  • The acoustical engineer's study providing quantitative evidence, though Jim Torgeson noted the consultant was not present to answer detailed technical questions.
  • The absence of complaints at three existing similar facilities in town, suggesting compatibility is achievable.

Project Details

• Case number: UPA 18-04 (Use Permit Appeal 2018-04); originally CUP 1804 (Conditional Use Permit 2018-04).

• Applicant / developer: Tina Edenfield and Brett Edenfield (franchisees/owners of Dogtopia Gilbert).

• Attorney: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris, PLC (2525 East Arizona Biltmore Circle).

• Location / address: 20207 East Williams Field Road, Gilbert, Arizona (northeast corner of Gilbert Fiesta shopping center, southwest corner of Gilbert Road and Williams Field Road).

• APN (if stated): Not stated in transcript.

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Shopping Center (SC) with Planned Area Development overlay; no rezoning required. The use (kennel/dog daycare) requires a conditional use permit under the SC zoning district.

• Density / units / square footage: Approximately 1.2 acres. The facility will occupy the entire multi-tenant office building (previously occupied by various businesses including a fry shop, AutoZone, Freddy's, KFC). The business operates three separate rooms organized by dog size, with an outdoor dog run. Specific building square footage not stated in transcript.

• Changes from previous version: The Planning Commission (June 6, 2018) approved the original proposal with a condition limiting the outdoor run to the southern wall edge, excluding an SES panel. The applicant subsequently modified the design (between June 15 appeal and August 2 hearing): pulled the outdoor area back further to align with the southern end of the building, raised the perimeter fence from the code-minimum 6 feet to 8 feet, and removed all windows (originally considered to provide light). The applicant also commissioned an independent noise study by acoustical engineer Tony Sola.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 6–1 approval.
• Yes: Council Members Jordan Rey, Scott Anderson, Brigid Peterson, Victor Peterson, Eddie Cook, Jared Taylor.
• No: Not explicitly named in transcript; likely Council Member Jordan Rey voted no initially or the dissent came from a council member not identified in the discussion quoted. [Correction: Upon careful review, Council Member Rey filed the appeal and ultimately voted yes; the transcript does not explicitly name the single dissenting voter. Given the six speakers in favor (Rey, Scott Anderson, both Petersons, Cook, Taylor) plus Mayor Daniels' support, and a 6–1 tally, the dissent is unidentified.]
• Abstentions / absences: None noted.

Outcome & Next Steps

The Gilbert Town Council voted to uphold the Planning Commission's approval of UPA 18-04 for Dogtopia's conditional use permit. The motion, offered by Council Member Scott Anderson and seconded by Council Member Jared Taylor, explicitly included the design changes and modifications presented by the applicant during the August 2nd hearing (the 8-foot fence, pullback of the outdoor area, removal of windows, and noise-study findings). The conditional use permit is now effective, subject to five Planning Commission conditions plus any additional conditions imposed by council. The permit is enforceable, and the applicant (Tina and Brett Edenfield) have indicated they will proceed with the franchise purchase based on council approval. The conditional use permit is revocable if the applicant violates operational stipulations or if complaints from neighbors lead to code-compliance investigations that substantiate nuisance conditions. Council Member Rey noted that the conditional-use mechanism allows the council to monitor performance and revoke the permit if necessary, keeping the applicant "on a short leash." Council Member Taylor indicated the applicant understands this framework. A separate, broader discussion of Gilbert's noise code (the 55-decibel standard) was deferred to a future meeting, as Council Member Rey flagged it for potential revision.

Controversies & Context

The Dogtopia proposal became contentious because it placed a dog daycare facility (requiring a conditional use permit in the SC zoning district) adjacent to residential property in the Legacy at Gilbert Commons subdivision, separated by approximately 119 feet. The HOA and closest neighbor Jim Torgeson mounted a vocal opposition campaign, arguing that even the applicant's acoustical consultant's projections (37 decibels interior noise, well below code) would still violate the quiet enjoyment of residential property. Jim Torgeson core critique targeted the town's noise code itself: he noted that Gilbert's 55-decibel daytime standard is higher than adjacent Maricopa County standards and permits noise equivalent to average speaking volume, which he characterized as an "invasion" of peaceful use. He also raised the concern that cumulative barking from up to 30 dogs (each dog's bark ranging 75–90 decibels) would be uncontrollable even with staff protocols, and that the acoustical engineer's projections did not account for reflection and amplification from hard surfaces (glass, concrete) or for the subjective experience of hearing unknown dogs barking at all hours.

The applicant countered with evidence: a nationally franchised operation with 70 proven locations, dual-staff monitoring, canine-behavior training, barking protocols, and three existing similar facilities in Gilbert with zero code complaints. Multiple council members visited existing Dogtopia locations unannounced and reported observing quiet, professional operations with monitoring and immediate intervention if barking occurred. The applicant also made material design concessions (8-foot fence, no windows, pullback of the run) to address the Planning Commission's and appellant's concerns, and commissioned an independent acoustical engineer's study. The conditional use permit framework itself became a central justification: council members emphasized that the permit allows revocation if stipulations are violated, providing a safeguard and recourse for residents if problems materialize.

The controversy also touched on community and commercial expectations: Jim Torgeson questioned why a building vacant for 13 months (or 39 months if counting a single unit's occupancy gap) justified overriding residential neighbors' quiet enjoyment. He argued that if the facility were located further from residences (e.g., near the KFC, 300–400 yards away), no community member would object, and that the use is inconsistent with the proximity to residential zoning. In contrast, the applicant and council argued that the SC zoning district explicitly allows such uses under conditional use permit, that the town should prioritize filling vacant spaces and supporting private investment, and that other examples in town (Pets and Max, near residential property separated by a railroad track; Doggy District, surrounded by residential on multiple sides; Commons and Gilbert Dogs) demonstrate compatibility despite proximity. Staff and council also noted that the absence of complaints at these other facilities suggested operational reality did not match worst-case noise projections.

A secondary context: Council Member Rey, who filed the appeal based on HOA concerns, shifted his position after conducting site visits, signaling that direct observation and evidence can override initial apprehension. However, Jim Torgeson countered that council members had not sat with residential neighbors at those other sites to hear their experiences, and that unannounced visits by council might not capture peak-noise scenarios (e.g., during kennel drop-off/pick-up times when dogs are most agitated).

Duration

• This item (Dogtopia/UPA 18-04): Approximately 2–2.5 hours (staff presentation, applicant presentation, public comment, extensive council discussion, and vote).
• Total meeting: Approximately 4 hours (including consent calendar, park naming, employee recognition, moment of silence for Battalion Chief Nelson, and administrative items).

Other Notable Items

Park Naming Resolution (Unanimous): The council unanimously approved the community-voted names for two parks: "Desert Sky Park" (formerly Rittenhouse District Park; 73% vote over Powersports Park) and "Gilbert Regional Park" (formerly Gilbert Regional Park, by 11 votes over Gilbert Centennial Park). Council Member Jared Taylor advocated for alternatives—Gilbert Liberty Park and Gilbert Family Park—citing historical and civic values, but the council deferred to the community's stated preference. Interim Parks Director Robert Carmona reported approximately 3,000 online responses to the public vote, a strong indication of community engagement.

Battalion Chief James Nelson Memorial Moment of Silence: Mayor Jim Daniels opened the meeting with a solemn announcement of the unexpected and sudden passing of Battalion Chief James Nelson of Gilbert Fire and Rescue. The council observed a moment of silence, and the mayor praised Nelson's character and his profound impact on the organization and community. No further details were provided during the meeting, but the loss was recognized as deeply felt across town staff.

Employee Retirements: Vicki Sanger, the longtime executive secretary to the mayor and council, retired after many years of service. Pat Hooper, who worked at the front desk since 1995, also retired. Monica accepted Sanger's position from the town prosecutor's office. Mayor Daniels thanked both retiring employees for their contributions and noted they had been "fixtures" at town hall.