Prescott Valley approves Waste Management rezoning for 43,500-square-foot transfer and hauling facility pending traffic study

Prescott Valley Approves Waste Management Rezoning for 3.42-Acre Transfer and Hauling Facility Without Final Traffic Study

The Prescott Valley Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved Waste Management of Arizona's request to rezone 3.42 acres on East Valley Road for a new transfer station and hauling facility, despite public concerns about traffic impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods and the absence of a finalized traffic impact statement. The 4-0 vote on March 10, 2025—Vice Chair Evans casting his final vote before resigning—green-lit the industrial development with conditions that the applicant submit updated traffic documentation to address routing, vehicle counts, and potential effects on State Route 69.

The project represents a significant expansion of Waste Management's operations in Prescott Valley. Rather than a modest expansion, the company is constructing two entirely new buildings on the northern 3.42 acres of its property: a 21,000-square-foot transfer station, a 22,500-square-foot hauling facility, a compressed natural gas station, and a diesel fuel island. Staff presentation indicated the project would occupy the northern portion of the parcel, currently undeveloped, with the southern section already zoned IG industrial general limited. The rezoning brings the entire property into a single zoning classification.

Key Speeches

"We will actually be constructing in phases so we will make the brand new transfer station first move the waste to the new transfer station demo the old transfer station then build the Hauling Company so it will take some time but we'll build it in phases so that we have continuous operation." — Jessica Walo, Waste Management Engineering Manager

"The staff has made comments requesting updates to the traffic impact statement that was provided through the development of this project. The site has changed its use and operation a couple of times so we've made that comment to the applicant and we're waiting for them to reply back to us with an updated traffic statement." — John Leer, Town Engineer

"Understand that they are perfectly capable of making an investment in the town and at the site. One of my concerns is that the traffic study is not attached to the report. You understand that only 2200 feet away you have a very densely populated residential area." — Patricia Betold, Public Commenter

Timeline

• Staff presentation: Chris Norlock, development services urban planner, outlined the rezoning request, noting the general plan designation allows the industrial use and that staff would continue to work on finalizing the traffic impact statement. Elevations showed both facilities at approximately 34 feet 8 inches and 34 feet 6 inches respectively, compliant with the town's 35-foot height maximum (excluding roof appendages, which must also stay under 35 feet). Norlock noted the curb cut on Mesino would be exit-only and that landscape buffers would comply with town standards.

• Applicant presentation: Justin Cassidy, project architect with Colie Architects, and Jessica Walo, Waste Management's engineering manager, responded to commission questions. Cassidy acknowledged he had adjusted building heights in response to earlier feedback. Walo explained the phased construction approach: construct the new transfer station first while maintaining the existing facility, demolish the old facility, then build the hauling station. She estimated the full build-out would take approximately two years. Both confirmed that fire hydrants would be relocated and two new on-site hydrants would be installed, with utility details to be submitted prior to the council hearing.

• Public comment: One registered speaker, Patricia Betold, a Prescott Valley resident and former resident of California, provided three minutes of testimony highlighting three broad categories of concern: (1) Waste Management's national monopolistic practices and job displacement of local small-business trash haulers; (2) traffic safety risks on SR-69, lack of truck routing restrictions preventing Valley Street access to the residential neighborhood 2,200 feet away, and absence of planned intersection improvements; (3) absence of local noise and odor ordinances to protect residents and nearby businesses from early-morning truck traffic (starting at 4:00–6:00 a.m.) and decomposition smells.

• Town engineer clarification: John Leer addressed Betold's traffic concerns, confirming that the traffic impact statement—still pending from the applicant's consultant—would cover vehicle counts, routing, turning movements, and peak-hour volumes. He explained that decisions about traffic signals at the Mesino/SR-69 intersection would depend on the traffic numbers generated by the site compared to existing State Route 69 volumes, and that ADOT would be coordinated with for state highway review.

• Commission discussion: Commissioner BB asked whether either facility would handle household hazardous waste; Norlock confirmed they would not. Commissioner (name not clearly stated in transcript) commended the applicant for revising building heights and the landscape plan to align with Prescott Valley standards. Vice Chair Evans, in his stated final official act, moved to approve the rezoning. A commissioner (recorded as "Stephen" in the vote sequence) initially offered the motion, which was temporarily held pending a second and comments; the motion was then restated and approved with a second from Commissioner BB.

• Vote: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to approve Zoning Map Change 24-6. Vice Chair Evans, Commissioner Retherford, Commissioner BB (full name not clearly stated), and Chair Griffith voted in favor. (Commissioner Herb and Commissioner Phil Bordone—noted as absent with excused absence—did not participate.)

Opposition

Number of speakers against: One registered public speaker (Patricia Betold). No organized opposition group named.

Main concerns:

1. Monopolistic business practices: Waste Management's track record in California of underpricing competitors to eliminate them, then raising rates for both commercial and residential customers, signals aggressive consolidation intent in Prescott Valley.

2. Job displacement: The facility will not create local jobs but rather displace existing small-business trash haulers operating in the community.

3. Truck traffic routing risk: The site has a direct connection via Valley Street to a densely populated residential neighborhood 2,200 feet away. The staff report and conditions do not explicitly restrict trucks to Mesino Road, leaving the possibility they could route through the residential area instead.

4. Highway safety: Trucks merging from Valley Street or Mesino Road onto SR-69—known locally as a dangerous corridor—will encounter high-speed traffic. No intersection improvements (e.g., signalized traffic light) have been proposed despite the anticipated volume increase once Waste Management consolidates trash collection in the region.

5. Lack of noise ordinance: Early-morning truck departures (4:00–6:00 a.m.) will be loud and disruptive to residents and nearby businesses 2,200 feet away, with no local noise ordinance to mitigate impacts.

6. Lack of odor ordinance: Decomposition smells from waste handling—a documented problem in Phoenix—threaten residents and local business interests, with no local odor ordinance in place to regulate or limit them.

7. Incomplete traffic study: The traffic impact statement was not attached to the staff report or publicly available for commission or public review before the hearing, preventing informed assessment of traffic volumes and routing assumptions.

Most compelling arguments:

Betold's argument that Waste Management's documented national pattern of underpricing to eliminate competition, followed by rate increases, positions Prescott Valley for future cost burdens resonated as a business-practice concern beyond typical land-use review. Her specific point that truck routing was not explicitly restricted to Mesino—leaving Valley Street open—directly challenged a gap in the development agreement, which town engineer Leer implicitly acknowledged by noting the traffic study would detail "routing" and "turning movements."

Support

Number of speakers in favor: None registered. Staff and applicant presentations and limited commissioner commentary constituted the only supportive voices.

Key arguments from applicant and staff:

1. Compliance with general plan: The northern portion's business-park general-plan designation explicitly allows industrial uses; rezoning aligns the zoning with the adopted plan.

2. Phased construction maintains operations: Waste Management's two-year phased approach—building the transfer station first, demolishing the old facility, then building the hauling station—ensures continuous operations and a professional transition rather than service disruption.

3. Height compliance and design improvements: The applicant revised building heights (34 ft 8 in and 34 ft 6 in, both under the 35-foot limit) and the landscape plan in response to commission feedback, demonstrating responsiveness to town design standards.

4. Utility coordination: Fire hydrant relocation and two new on-site hydrants will be detailed in utility submissions for final council review.

5. Pending traffic study to address routing and volumes: Town engineer Leer's commitment that the traffic impact statement will cover vehicle counts, peak-hour volumes, routing, and turning movements, and that ADOT coordination will occur, created a procedural safeguard for traffic safety concerns.

Most compelling arguments from staff and applicant: Staff's framing that the traffic study is still in review and will address the routing and vehicle-count questions posed by the public speaker positioned the approval as conditional—pending data that will inform subsequent decisions about intersection improvements or truck-routing restrictions. This deferred responsibility to a professional traffic analysis.

Project Details

• Case number: ZMC 24-6 (Zoning Map Change 24-6)

• Applicant / developer: Waste Management of Arizona; project architect Justin Cassidy (Colie Architects); engineering manager Jessica Walo (Waste Management, four-corners region, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah)

• Location / address: 9434 East Valley Road, Prescott Valley, Arizona (northwest corner of Mesino and Florentine Roads)

• APN (Assessor's Parcel Number): Not stated in transcript. Identified as "parcel number 9e" in brief analysis.

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: C1 (commercial minor industrial) for the northern 3.42 acres → IG (industrial general limited) for the entire property, bringing the entire parcel into IG classification. Southern portion already zoned IG.

• Density / units / square footage:

  • Transfer station: 21,000 square feet, 34 ft 8 in height
  • Hauling facility: 22,500 square feet, 34 ft 6 in height
  • Compressed natural gas station: on-site
  • Diesel fuel island: on-site
  • Parking and circulation: landscaped with 10-foot buffers on north, south, and west sides

• Curb cut: Mesino Road curb cut designated as exit-only. (Entrance curb cut location not specified in transcript.)

• Fire infrastructure: Fire hydrant on Valley Road to be relocated; two new on-site hydrants to be installed.

• Changes from previous version (if reconsideration): Staff report noted that "since it had been updated," the 8-foot slat fencing is now limited to the west property line only (previously, the letter of intent had language indicating 8-foot fencing on all property lines). Applicant revised building heights and landscape plan in response to commission feedback.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 4-0 (unanimous approval)

• Yes: Vice Chair Evans, Commissioner Retherford, Commissioner BB, Chair Griffith (stated as "chairperson Sandy Griffi" in the meeting; canonical spelling Griffith inferred from role)

• No: None

• Abstentions / absences: Commissioner Herb present but voting yes (called in the voice vote as "yes"); Commissioner Phil Bordone excused absence (did not vote)

Individual vote names confirmed by clerk call: "commissioner Retherford" — "Vice chair Evans yes" — "commissioner BB yes" — "commissioner leany" (inferred as Commissioner Laney from earlier motion second) — "chair Griffith yes." Commissioner Herb and Commissioner Phil Bordone's individual votes were called; Herb voted yes; Bordone was absent.

Outcome & Next Steps

The Planning and Zoning Commission approved Zoning Map Change 24-6, rezoning the northern 3.42 acres from C1 to IG. The approval is conditional on:

1. Finalization of the traffic impact statement by the applicant's consultant, to be reviewed by town staff and ADOT for compliance with traffic safety standards and potential routing/intersection improvements.

2. Submission of utility plans detailing fire hydrant relocation and on-site hydrant installation prior to the town council hearing.

3. Compliance with conditions listed in the staff recommendation (full list not read into the transcript but available in the staff report and minutes).

The project will proceed to the Prescott Valley Town Council for final approval. Waste Management will execute a phased construction plan over approximately two years: build the new transfer station, demolish the existing facility, and construct the new hauling station, maintaining continuous waste operations throughout.

Controversies & Context

Waste Management's national market position: Public commenter Patricia Betold framed Waste Management not as a neutral industrial operator but as a consolidating monopoly with a documented pattern of aggressive acquisition. In California, she stated, the company underprices competitors to eliminate them, then raises rates. This business-practice concern, while acknowledged by commissioners and staff as outside their direct purview (zoning, traffic, design), introduced a broader policy question: should Prescott Valley welcome or scrutinize a company whose expansion strategy may reduce local small-business competition and increase future costs to residents and local businesses?

Traffic study absent at hearing: The most substantive controversy is the conditional approval without a finalized traffic impact statement publicly available. Public commenter Patricia Betold directly challenged this, and town engineer John Leer acknowledged that the applicant had submitted multiple versions of the traffic study as the project evolved, and staff was still awaiting the final submittal. This created a procedural tension: the commission approved the zoning on the representation that traffic data would later address specific concerns, but no approved data was available for public or commission review at the hearing. Leer's response—that the traffic study will reveal vehicle counts, peak-hour volumes, routing, and turning movements, and that ADOT will be consulted—positioned traffic-related decisions (e.g., whether a traffic signal is required) as a post-approval, staff-level matter rather than a commission-level decision.

Truck routing restriction not explicit: Betold identified a specific gap: the development agreement and staff report do not explicitly restrict trucks to Mesino Road, leaving open the possibility of traffic routing through Valley Street into the residential neighborhood. Town engineer Leer confirmed that routing would be addressed in the traffic study but did not commit to a restriction at the hearing. This unresolved detail—whether trucks will be contractually required to use Mesino, or whether routing will be advisory or regulatory—remains a potential source of post-approval conflict.

Absence of noise and odor ordinances: Betold's point that Prescott Valley lacks local noise and odor ordinances to protect residents from decomposition smells and early-morning truck noise was noted but not directly addressed by commissioners or staff. This represents a gap in local regulatory capacity independent of the zoning decision; it may indicate a broader town policy need if industrial waste facilities are to be permitted near residential areas.

Vice Chair Evans's final meeting: Vice Chair Evans announced that this would be his final meeting after 2.5 years of service, as he is relocating to Atlanta, Georgia in approximately 1.5 months. He stated he would submit his resignation to the mayor on the following day. This personnel announcement, made during the commission's deliberation on a significant industrial rezoning, does not directly affect the vote (he voted yes) but signals a transition in commission membership and institutional knowledge.

Duration

• This item (ZMC 24-6): Approximately 25–30 minutes (from staff presentation through vote)

• Total meeting: Approximately 40–45 minutes (call to order, announcements, one public hearing item, approval of minutes, and adjournment)

Other Notable Items

Approval of January 13, 2025 meeting minutes: Approved unanimously with no discussion or amendments.

Vice Chair Evans resignation announcement: Vice Chair Evans announced his departure from the commission, to take effect within approximately 1.5 months due to relocation to Atlanta, Georgia. He noted 2.5 years of service and stated he would submit his formal resignation to the mayor. The commission did not formally respond or vote on the resignation; it was noted as an announcement.