Mound City council weighs dog daycare zoning change after applicant’s noise tests and neighborhood pushback

Max Bitterman returned to the Mound City Council on Nov. 25 to seek guidance on adding dog daycare, training and boarding as a land-use classification in the city’s mixed-use zoning districts. Development Director Sarah Smith told the council this was a council introduction — a nonbinding opportunity to give feedback before any formal code change or site-specific application.

Bitterman showed slides and a short video of decibel testing at his downtown Minneapolis site, saying the test recorded an average sound level of about 53 decibels and that his concept is a boutique, neighborhood-oriented operation rather than a large kennel. He told council members the average daily occupancy would be about 40 dogs (with 50 possible) and described mitigation options including composite vinyl soundproof fencing, denser hedging, limits on outdoor hours and 100% supervision when dogs are outside. “53 average,” Bitterman told the council when asked about his readings.

Why it matters: changing Mound’s land-use table would be a district-wide decision, not a site-by-site exception. That means any amendment would permit the use across all properties in whichever district the council approves — prompting questions about precedent, consistency and neighborhood character.

Council and staff discussion focused on the zoning path. Sarah Smith reiterated that a study is required to determine whether the use should be permitted or allowed only as a conditional use and which district(s) would be appropriate. Under the conditional-use (CUP) approach discussed, the council could write specific standards — hours of operation, maximum outdoor times, screening, noise monitoring and density limits — and require monitoring systems and complaint-driven enforcement.

Public comment was mixed but heavily focused on nearby residents’ concerns. Joel Branch, who lives two houses from the proposed site, said he opposed the proposal at that location and questioned the feasibility of keeping 40–50 dogs quiet in a small residential parcel: “I have a hard time believing that it’s going to be as quiet as an office or refrigerator,” he said. Gus Pierce and other neighbors raised similar worries about audible barking, impacts on property values and the site’s close proximity to houses. Jeff Johnston, author of the amendment the council added to the agenda, pointed to his written concerns about unclear dog counts and waste management. Supporters including a resident who said she would use the facility urged the council to keep the concept in mind if the applicant finds a more suitable site.

Land-use consultant Scott Gates urged the council to favor a conditional-use approach with measurable monitoring and standards, noting that a CUP can protect neighbors by creating enforceable conditions and an ongoing review process.

What happens next: The applicant may choose to proceed with a text amendment and planning review. If the council wants to move forward, staff would prepare a study and draft ordinance language, the item would go to the planning commission for recommendation and then return to the council for a public hearing. Council members encouraged the applicant to refine site selection and operational details (hours, outdoor time, measurable noise thresholds and documented references to comparable facilities) if he pursues the next step.

Council did not take a formal vote on land-use approval at the meeting; the discussion served to provide the applicant and staff with the council’s feedback and to clarify the procedural path.