Public turns out over proposed Embry Riddle training airfield; council schedules Feb. 23 hearing

A proposed Embry Riddle Aeronautical University training airfield on land owned by a local property owner has drawn significant public attention in Chino Valley, with residents submitting petitions, reading emailed opposition into the record and asking the council for detailed impact studies ahead of a scheduled public hearing.

On Tuesday the town clerk read an email from resident David Craig that urged the council to reject a rezoning request for the property and alleged potential health hazards from aviation gasoline emissions, declines in property values and an appearance of pre-judgment by a council member (Craig urged Council member Holt to recuse). The clerk read the letter into the public record at the resident’s request.

Annie Perkins, who is associated with the Perkins property, addressed the council to apologize for an earlier social-media post in which she incorrectly stated the town rezoned property without the owner’s knowledge; she said she edited and later deleted the post after verifying the record.

Other public speakers offered differing perspectives. Andrew Marwick, a nonresident, urged the council to consider economic benefits, saying a training field would bring regional visitors and support local businesses. Laura Chan summarized petitions and asked for transparency: she said petition organizers collected 471 signatures, 208 of them verified Chino Valley residents, and asked the council to present summaries of letters and emails both for and against the project, noise analyses with mapped flight paths and clarification on whether the council would be voting on Phase 1 of the conditional-use permit or all phases.

Town Manager Terry Denmey announced the council will hold the public hearing on Monday, Feb. 23, 2026 at 5 p.m. at Grace Church to ensure adequate space for turnout; Denmey said the council will keep the hearing open until all who wish to speak have been heard. The manager also described overflow viewing and parking arrangements.

Speakers on Tuesday raised legal and planning questions — noise, water annexation, definitions in the Unified Development Ordinance, potential environmental impacts and fire-station staffing tied to phases of the project — and requested that Development Services provide a clear staff presentation addressing those specifics at the hearing.

The council did not take a vote Tuesday; the public hearing on Feb. 23 will be the formal venue for hearing testimony and will precede any council decision on rezoning or conditional-use permits.