Supervisors remand Gamblefield event permit to planning and zoning after disputed road-dedication and attendance terms

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted April 8 to remand a contested special-use permit for Gamblefield — a private event venue that hosts recurring dog events — back to the county’s Planning and Zoning Commission for further work on conditions, chiefly a disputed road-dedication requirement and attendee thresholds.

Applicant Jane Pyer told the board that Gamblefield regularly hosts dog events but objected to a condition requiring a dedication of adjacent roadway right-of-way and to limits that the county applied to the permit. Pyer said the dedication lacks an essential nexus to the proposed use, raised Prop 207 (property-rights) concerns, and disputed traffic-count data staff cited as the basis for further improvements.

“Some of the conditions are unduly burdensome and an erroneous application of the law,” Pyer said, noting she and neighbors had agreed to a compromise of 40 days a year for events between October and April but that road-dedication terms created legal and property-value concerns.

County staff said the applicant initially requested a much larger entitlement — up to 400 attendees at 60 days per year — which would require permanent infrastructure such as water, wastewater, grading and ADA access. Tom Ellsworth, director of planning and development, described the commission’s recommendation as an attempt to allow a lower-intensity, interim-style entitlement while protecting public access and safety.

Jesse Gutierrez, county engineer, presented historical imagery and documentation he said show the 331st alignment has been used for decades and explained that the county’s zoning code requires half-street dedication on section-line alignments when increased entitlements are requested. Gutierrez said many typical infrastructure conditions were waived for this project and that staff had provided extensive records to the applicant.

That factual record did not settle neighbors. Several nearby property owners testified that portions of the road have been treated as private or prescriptive access, that they were not approached about dedications, and that the historical record is contested. One property owner said the county previously spent taxpayer funds stabilizing the roadway and that permanent dedications would diminish private property values.

Facing the dispute, Vice Chair Leco moved to remand the item to Planning and Zoning to give staff and the applicant time to negotiate workable conditions; the motion was seconded and passed 4–1. Chair Brophy McGee cast the lone dissent, saying the venue’s growth made it a permanent commercial use that should meet the county’s infrastructure thresholds.

What happens next: The remand sends the case back to the Planning and Zoning Commission with direction to continue discussions with the applicant and affected neighbors. Staff said the commission would prepare a refined recommendation to return to the Board of Supervisors for final action.