Buckeye denies MMA Produce appeal, upholds AIM Recycling site plan unanimously
BUCKEYE, ARIZONA — November 6, 2024

Buckeye denies MMA Produce appeal, upholds AIM Recycling site plan unanimously

Council unanimously denied appeal by adjacent agricultural property owner requiring CMU wall from approved AIM Recycling facility citing food safety concerns, and approved Desert Creek Community Master Plan Amendment with pod-based mixed-use development in western Buckeye.

Council Denies Food Safety Wall Demand; Desert Creek Master Plan Amendment Passes 4–1 Amid Flexibility Concerns

On November 6, 2024, the Buckeye City Council heard two major land-use appeals with sharply different outcomes: a unanimous rejection of an appeal by a neighboring agricultural producer demanding industrial-use screening, and a narrow 4–1 approval of a sprawling 2,234-acre master plan amendment that staff characterized as a balance between predictability and market flexibility.

The evening illustrated how Arizona planning authority grapples with the collision between land-use speculation and proportional impact mitigation. MMA Produce, a family-owned radish and vegetable grower, sought to shift the burden of protecting its aspirational packaging facility onto an incoming metal-recycling operator. AIM Recycling's Canadian parent company, American Iron and Metal, had purchased the site after two years of city coordination and did not yield. The second case showed how modern development marketing—casting a wide net to multiple potential industrial and commercial tenants across a vast corridor—can strain council members' appetite for open-ended zoning categories.

The AIM Recycling Appeal: Quasi-Judicial Hearing and the Responsibility Question

Because this was an appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission decision, council sat in quasi-judicial capacity with outside counsel. Procedurally, the appellant presented first, staff second, the applicant third, and the appellant was afforded rebuttal.

MMA Produce's counsel, Paul Gilbert of Gilbert Blley, PLLC, opened with a detailed complaint: the recycling facility's chain-link fence with privacy slats would be inadequate to prevent rodent intrusion and trash debris that could contaminate MMA's packaged produce. MMA's Primus GFS food safety audits, conducted annually by third parties, require documented risk assessments for adjacent industrial activity. Gilbert cited photographs of AIM's existing Phoenix location showing piles of metal scrap and debris stacked against a flimsy chain-link fence. He requested that the site plan condition require an 8-foot CMU wall along the entire 2,000-foot western property line separating the two sites.

"We come here tonight with one simple request—all we're asking for is that you require as a condition of the plan approval an 8ft CMU wall all along the approximately 2,000 ft border between the recent 2000 ft adjacent to our property." — Paul Gilbert, MMA Produce attorney

MMA's owner, Todd MMA, reinforced the appeal with reference to recent industrial development nearby in Surprise, where Taylor Morrison and other contractors had erected CMU walls as standard practice. He positioned the wall as a cost-neutral favor from a $2 billion global company.

"American Iron and Metal is a hugely successful company with 90 locations globally and over 2 billion in annual revenue. A CMU wall for them is not a big matter. They've got the funds. They can do it." — Todd MMA, property owner

City Planning Director Ken presented the Planning Commission's September 10, 2024 approval of the site plan. The property, 95.9 gross acres (44.3 acres in phase one), has been zoned General Commerce since 2007 and carries an "employment" designation in the General Plan since 2018. The rail corridor south of Baseline Road was explicitly intended for industrial development. Ken emphasized that the proposed operation—pre-shredded metal sorting via an enclosed intelligent sorting machine, not open-air shredding or crushing—would be far less intensive than MMA's photos suggested. Materials would arrive in containers and bins, pile heights would be capped at 15 feet, and the site featured an 8-foot decorative masonry wall along Baseline Road plus a 30-foot landscape buffer with 36-inch box trees along the western property line. Renderings showed minimal visibility of operations from the street or adjacent property.

"This is pre-shredded materials usually in containers and bins. It's not there's not a lot of trapped air and gaps in the materials where rats or something would typically live." — Ken, City Planning Staff

Ben Graph, counsel for AIM Recycling (Corals and Brady), defended the approval. He noted that AIM had purchased the property in January 2023 only after two years of written city confirmation that recycling was a permitted use and that a chain-link fence would meet code. The company had negotiated multiple times with MMA and offered a compromise: split the cost of the full CMU wall 50–50. When MMA rejected that and instead proposed AIM build half the wall while MMA defer costs, AIM declined and pursued its approved site plan.

"What Mr. Gilbert is asking the city council to do today is twofold. They're first asking the city council to impose a development standard upon my client which is not required by City code so I ask you to consider that very carefully because we meet every single aspect of the site plan and development standard requirements." — Ben Graph, AIM Recycling attorney

He also raised a curiosity: MMA's existing facility in Surprise is surrounded by a chain-link fence, not a CMU wall, yet functions without stated contamination issues. Why the sudden need for a wall?

Council Questioning: The Aspiration vs. Current-Use Divide

Councilmember Yonker dominated the question phase, probing whether a CMU wall is federally mandated (it is not) and whether MMA's Primus GFS audit actually requires one (it does not—only that risk assessments address adjacent industrial activity). He also questioned the timeline: MMA bought the property five years ago but has taken no steps toward annexation or packaging-plant development. Currently, the land grows alfalfa and radishes, not packaged goods.

"Have you taken any active steps either with the city or with the county to solidify that [packaging plant plan] right now? It's an aspiration, is that correct?" — Councilmember Tony Yonker

Vice Clay Goodman pressed the same point with sharper language:

"You don't need that wall right now. But this very hearing and this very negotiation indicates very powerfully why we need to do it now if they're not willing to do it now, how willing are they going to be four years from now when we come in and say hey we need you to build a wall? I think it's naive to assume that we're going to be able to be successful whatsoever five years or four years whenever we build the packaging plant to get them to put in a wall when they're not even willing to do it now." — Clay Goodman then invoked Robert Frost: "Good fences make good neighbors," and suggested MMA and AIM resolve this privately once MMA actually moves forward with annexation and development.

Councilmember Hustus asked a practical question: would AIM reconsider a cost-share arrangement when MMA eventually builds its facility? Graph, now on the record, was cautious—legal fees had mounted—but did not close the door entirely.

The Rebuttal and Final Arguments

Gilbert used his rebuttal time to emphasize that AIM had not been a willing neighbor: first contact in May, no follow-up for three months, no proactive sharing of site plans. He also noted that future phases of AIM's site (roughly one-third to one-half of the property) have undefined uses, leaving open the possibility of more intensive industrial operations later. The 15-foot pile-height limit and enclosed sorting building did not fully address outdoor storage concerns.

He circled back to the city ordinance: development code section 5.9 states that industrial site-plan review aims "to protect adjacent uses." That obligation, Gilbert argued, had not been satisfied. The burden should fall on AIM because it was introducing an incompatible intensive industrial use into an agricultural area.

"Coming back to your ordinance which says your ordinance is designed to the site plan process to protect adjacent uses, I submit has not been done in this case." — Paul Gilbert, rebuttal

The Vote

Councilmember Yonker made the motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's site plan approval. Clay Goodman seconded. The council voted 5–0 in favor of denial, with one abstention/non-vote recorded for Patrick HagEstad (absent).

Vote Breakdown:

The appeal was denied; AIM Recycling's site plan approval stood.

The Desert Creek Community Master Plan Amendment: "Blank Check" or "Polished Check"?

The second major item was Ordinance 24-24, approving an amendment to the Desert Creek Community Master Plan, a 2,234-acre mixed-use development north and south of Interstate 10 in western Buckeye.

City Planning staff (Bart Wingard and Adam Copeland) explained that the original applicant proposal was extremely flexible—essentially allowing any land use from industrial to residential across the northern 930 acres, with no predictability. Staff pushed back, uncomfortable with a "blank check." Working with the applicant, represented by Kurt Jones (2525 East Camelback, Phoenix) and attorney Shane Ross, they developed the "Pod" concept.

The Pod structure breaks the 930 acres into six pods, each separated by at least 15 feet (roads, trails, utility corridors). Once a use is assigned to a pod, the entire pod is that use (with limited exceptions for complementary commercial). Mandatory minimums: 25% of acreage must be residential, with a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre per pod. Heavy industrial is prohibited; only light industrial and business park uses are allowed. The applicant also committed to provide a 250-foot-wide public easement along the Hampa River for a future trail, compared to the 35-foot minimum required by code.

A future Desert Creek freeway interchange (roughly two miles west of Johnson Road) is contemplated as part of a regional transportation solution, though city engineering is still conducting a year-long "Sunvalley Corridor" study to define needed improvements and exaction mechanisms.

The Flexibility Debate

Tony Youngker expressed skepticism. Despite staff's assurances, the Pod concept still allows "commercial" and "light industrial" uses—broad categories encompassing offices, retail, hospitality, warehouses, manufacturing, and more. The applicant is marketing the property to potential large-scale end users, meaning the city is approving a land-use plan before knowing who will build or what specifically they will do.

"I feel like we're giving you majority of our uses just open and then you go and find your buyer, which is a great business proposition for the property owner and I respect it, but also seems like we're we don't really have a plan and we don't have any like intention of what we're actually going to do." — Councilmember Tony Yonker

Adam Copeland, city planning staff, acknowledged that this approach is common in larger master-plan communities, especially those marketed to multiple potential tenants. The alternative—waiting for a specific end user before finalizing the plan—can delay economic development. Bart Wingard reframed it: "This isn't a blank check. It's a check with the numbers filled out, just not signed."

Councilmember Hustus raised a critical infrastructure concern: Johnson Road. Multiple developments—Cypriani, Desert Creek—will burden Johnson Road, which is currently a country road. Yuma Road will also see heavy construction traffic. When will the city actually fund or require developers to fund real improvements?

John Willett, City Engineering, explained that a "Sunvalley Corridor" study is underway (one-year timeline) to identify needed improvements and establish exaction mechanisms. But no concrete answers today—another deferral of infrastructure responsibility.

Vote and Dissent

The motion to approve passed 4–1. Tony Youngker dissented, citing concerns over the breadth of land uses and the marketing-driven approach rather than concrete planning.

Vote Breakdown:

Timeline

AIM Recycling Appeal Item (6A)

Desert Creek CMP Amendment Item (6B)

Total meeting duration: Approximately 2.5–3 hours (specific total time not stated in transcript).

Opposition (AIM Recycling Appeal)

Number of speakers against: 1 (MMA Produce, represented by Paul Gilbert and owner Todd MMA).

Main concerns:

  1. Chain-link fence inadequate to prevent rodent intrusion and pest contamination of packaged produce, violating Primus GFS food-safety audit requirements.
  2. Photographs of AIM's existing Phoenix facility show piles of metal debris and trash stacked against flimsy chain-link fencing, directly visible.
  3. AIM was uncooperative during pre-approval outreach—first contact in May 2024, no follow-up for three months, no proactive sharing of site plans.
  4. City ordinance section 5.9 mandates site-plan review "to protect adjacent uses"; CMU wall is necessary to fulfill this obligation.
  5. AIM has committed only to phase one; future phases (roughly one-third to one-half of the property) have undefined uses, leaving open possibility of more intensive industrial operations.
  6. Outdoor pile storage (15-foot height limit) will remain visible and vulnerable to wind-blown debris and pest harborage.
  7. MMA was coerced to file appeal after AIM rejected cost-sharing compromise and reduced offer (50% wall vs. 100%).

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups: None identified; MMA Produce is family-owned.

Support (AIM Recycling Appeal)

Number of speakers in favor: 1 (AIM Recycling, represented by Ben Graph and Christian Duah).

Main arguments:

  1. AIM purchased the property in January 2023 only after two years of written city confirmation that recycling use was permitted and chain-link fence code-compliant. The applicant relied on that assurance.
  2. City staff mediation was attempted but unsuccessful; AIM made substantial goodwill gesture by offering to split CMU wall cost 50–50 with MMA.
  3. MMA rejected the 50–50 compromise and instead proposed AIM build half and defer MMA's cost-sharing; AIM declined because MMA simultaneously stated it was not ready to develop or annex.
  4. Primus GFS audits do not require CMU walls—only risk assessment and mitigation measures, which are MMA's responsibility, not AIM's.
  5. MMA's own Surprise facility is surrounded by chain-link fence, not CMU, and operates without stated contamination issues; inconsistent rationale for CMU here.
  6. Proposed site design includes enclosed sorting building, 15-foot pile height limits, slatted privacy chain-link, 30-foot landscape buffer with trees, and committed no crushing or shredding in future phases—significantly reduces operational intensity vs. Phoenix facility.
  7. Industrial General Commerce zoning and employment designation have been in place since 2007–2018; applicant is not introducing unprecedented industrial use but rather fulfilling long-standing land-use intent.
  8. MMA's packaging plant is aspirational (no annexation, no development application) and should not burden a company ready to commence operations within months.

Most compelling arguments:

Project Details

AIM Recycling Site Plan

Desert Creek Community Master Plan Amendment

Vote Breakdown

AIM Recycling Appeal (Item 6A)

Desert Creek CMP Amendment (Item 6B)

Outcome & Next Steps

AIM Recycling Appeal

Decision: Appeal DENIED; Planning Commission site plan approval upheld. AIM Recycling may proceed with permitting for phase one of the facility (downtown sorting building, administrative building, screened storage, rail extension, parking). Chain-link fence with privacy slats and landscape buffer will provide site perimeter screening per approved site plan.

Conditions: Original Planning Commission conditions A through RR remain in force (not enumerated in transcript).

What to watch:

Desert Creek Community Master Plan Amendment

Decision: Ordinance 24-24 APPROVED 4–1. Amendment is effective upon council vote. The 930-acre northern parcel is now governed by the Pod concept with use tables, density caps, and landscape/trail provisions.

Conditions: Conditions A through NN (not enumerated in transcript).

Development Agreement: Updated to reflect current practices and regional interchange commitment.

What to watch:

Controversies & Context

AIM Recycling Appeal

The Food Safety vs. Current-Use Dispute: MMA Produce framed the CMU wall as a food-safety certification requirement, citing Primus GFS audit standards that mandate risk assessment of adjacent industrial activity. However, the transcript reveals Primus GFS does not mandate CMU walls—only that the facility owner conduct risk assessment and implement "necessary mitigation measures." This distinction proved pivotal: the council found the burden of mitigation to be MMA's responsibility, not AIM's, especially since MMA's packaging facility does not yet exist and is purely aspirational.

Timing and the Speculation Problem: Clay Goodman crystallized the tension: MMA bought the property five years ago but has taken no active steps toward annexation or development. It currently grows alfalfa and rotational crops. Why should AIM bear the cost of protecting a use that does not exist and may never exist? Tony Youngker repeatedly pressed MMA on whether Primus GFS actually mandates a wall for the current agricultural use (it does not; only for the future packaging facility, which MMA must design and execute). The council's implicit holding: companies cannot require their neighbors to build expensive infrastructure to accommodate their own hypothetical future operations.

The Negotiation Narrative: Both sides claimed high ground on outreach and compromise. AIM stated it offered to split wall costs 50–50; MMA countered that AIM was uncooperative (first contact May, no follow-up for three months, site plan not proactively shared). When MMA rejected the 50–50 deal and instead asked AIM to build half while MMA deferred costs, AIM declined—partly because MMA stated it was not ready to develop anyway. The city's staff mediation failed. The appeal thus became a proxy for a neighbors' dispute that negotiation could not resolve.

Zoning and Historical Intent: The General Commerce zone has been in place since 2007, and employment designation since 2018. The city explicitly viewed the rail corridor south of Baseline as suitable for industrial development. AIM's recycling use, while intensive, is not contrary to the zone's permitted uses and character. CMU walls in that context are exceptions (e.g., Walmart on Southern Avenue has chain-link; Ross has berm plus chain-link), not rules.

The Robert Frost Moment: Clay Goodman quoted "Mending Wall"—"good fences make good neighbors"—but used it to argue that MMA and AIM should work out a private arrangement, not impose conditions on the applicant via appeal. This suggested the council viewed the wall as a relationship issue, not a land-use planning issue.

Desert Creek Community Master Plan Amendment

Blank Check vs. Polished Check: Councilmember Yonker's dissent captured the core tension. The Pod concept does provide constraints (residential minimums, density caps, light industrial only, separated pods) that the original proposal lacked. But "commercial" and "light industrial" remain broad categories encompassing offices, retail, warehouses, manufacturing, hospitality—nearly the full spectrum of non-residential uses. The applicant is marketing the property to large national developers without specifying what will ultimately be built. This is common practice in large master-plan communities but generates political discomfort when the site is on a major freeway corridor and infrastructure needs are uncertain.

Marketing-Driven Planning: The applicant's strategy—secure flexible land-use approval, then market to multiple potential tenants—makes business sense but inverts typical planning precedent (identify end user, then tailor plan). Staff acknowledged this tension, noting that some CMP approvals do involve identified end users, but this one does not. Yonker's critique was less about the Pod concept's technical merit than about the absence of concrete vision for what will actually happen on 930 acres.

Infrastructure Deferral: Craig Heustis repeatedly pressed the point: Johnson Road and Yuma Road will be crushed by traffic from Cypriani, Desert Creek, and other developments, yet the city has no concrete plan or committed funding for improvements. City Engineering's answer—a year-long Sunvalley Corridor study to identify needs and exaction mechanisms—was perceived as another delay. The council has approved a 2,234-acre development without defining how it will be served by roads and utilities. This is common in speculative development but places burden on local infrastructure not yet upgraded. Ordinance 24-24 does not trigger any immediate road or utility improvements; those will flow from individual pod development applications and exactions.

The Yuma Road / Johnson Road Bifurcation: Yuma Road is the southern boundary of the amendment. Johnson Road is approximately 2–2.5 miles east. Both are currently inadequate for the scale of traffic that future developments will generate. Cypriani will rebuild Yuma Road to its existing condition (not upgraded), and no funding mechanism for Johnson Road improvements has been established. The Desert Creek interchange (2+ miles west of Johnson) is a future regional solution, not an immediate relief. Thus, the corridor faces a potential traffic bottleneck with no clear funding or timeline for resolution.

Duration

Other Notable Items

4J Continuation (Consent Agenda Item): Clay Goodman pulled Item 4J from consent agenda, citing confusing language. City Manager agreed to continue the item to November 19, 2024 regular council meeting to allow staff to clarify irregularities. Motion by Clay Goodman, seconded by Craig Heustis, passed unanimously.

Public Comment on Permitting: Carol Reynolds provided public comment praising City Planning staff, specifically Larry Francis and Susanna Vela, who proactively called her to offer assistance after she was having difficulty with a permit application. She noted the staff's responsiveness ("government in action"). This was entered into the record as a positive recognition of staff excellence, with Eric Orsborn acknowledging her praise.

Veterans Memorial Ribbon Cutting: Eric Orsborn announced a Saturday 4:00 p.m. ribbon cutting for a new Veterans Memorial in Sundance Park, offering expanded seating for public attendance. The existing memorial across the street at Benbow Park will remain. This was a community event announcement, not a land-use matter.

Infrastructure Planning – Sunvalley Corridor Study: John Willett, City Engineering, reported that a consultant selection process is underway for a comprehensive "Sunvalley Corridor" study