A twice-overturned decision on a subdivision near Donnelly will be taken up once again by Valley County Commissioners on Monday.
The proposed River Fork Ranch Subdivision would be built on about 44 acres off Spink Lane about a third of a mile east of Idaho 55.
Current plans call for 30 single-family lots on land about three miles north of Donnelly and three miles south of Lake Fork. The lots would be accessed by private gravel roads and served by groundwater wells and septic systems.
The application was denied by the Valley County Planning and Zoning Commission on May 9, but then approved by the county commissioners on Sept. 9 following an appeal filed by the developer, David Callister of Garden City.
That approval was then vacated last month after neighbors of the proposed subdivision filed appeals of their own, citing insufficient evidence for the approval and improper procedures used by the county commissioners.
“I think this is one of those applications that maybe got away from us a little bit,” said Elt Hasbrouck, who chairs the board of county commissioners, before a Nov. 18 vote to rescind the approval.
A public hearing on the application will be re-opened on Monday at 1 p.m. at the Valley County Courthouse in Cascade. The meeting can also be watched online here.
Multiple phases planned?
One of the major reasons the commissioners cited for the reversal of their Sept. 9 approval is a lack of clarity on what River Fork Ranch would look like at full buildout.
The 44 acres on which the subdivision is proposed is part of nearly 320 contiguous acres owned by Lake Fork Ranch LLC, a company registered to Callister.
Callister’s pending application calls for 31 residential lots, but he implied future phases could be planned during the Sept. 9 hearing in which the subdivision was approved.
Specifically, Callister suggested that the county could give him credits on future development agreements in exchange for improvements he makes to the intersection of Idaho 55 and Spink Lane as part of a development agreement for River Fork Ranch.
“That raised a flag that this is not the only consideration now,” Commissioner Sherry Maupin said during the Nov. 18 hearing. “My greatest concern is that we’re looking at all impacts for this entire area and not just one subdivision.”
Without donors like you, this story would not exist.
Make a donation of any size here
Procedural errors
Discussion about future phases of development did not come up until the Sept. 9 meeting, at which point a public hearing on the application had already been closed.
Appeals filed by three groups of neighbors noted this as a due process violation.
“That was not appropriate for that point,” said Abigail Germaine, a Boise lawyer who represented Jeff and Janelle Miller, who live across Spink Lane from the proposed subdivision.
“It was not a public hearing, and other members of the community were not able to provide input as to that information and the nature of the development as a phased development,” Germaine said.
Idaho 55/Spink Lane traffic
The commissioners requested more information on several aspects of the application, including how traffic concerns at the intersection of Idaho 55 and Spink Lane would be addressed.
“That has been the one thing that I don’t think has been clear throughout the entire process,” Hasbrouck said during the Nov. 18 meeting.
A traffic analysis requested by the Idaho Transportation Department found that the intersection should be realigned so the roads are perpendicular to improve sight lines.
However, ITD cannot enforce that improvement because the subdivision is about a third of a mile away from the highway.
Safety improvements recommended by Valley County Engineer Dan Coonce would be enforced through a development agreement, but those improvements have not yet been aired to commissioners.
“The design of that intersection should be a requirement to be improved on before you go further with it,” Hasbrouck said.
Wildlife, property impacts
The commissioners also requested more information on how the subdivision might affect wildlife, and particularly elk believed to frequent the area.
More information was also requested on how River Fork Ranch may affect neighboring property values and water wells, as well as whether it will generate enough property tax revenue to offset impacts to county services.
Original appeal
The Valley County P&Z initially voted down plans for River Fork Ranch on May 9 amid concerns about traffic, density and compatibility with agricultural land surrounding the proposal.
Callister’s appeal, however, argued that the application “entirely” followed county codes and said there was no “legal basis” to deny the application.
“Respectfully, we think planning and zoning got it wrong,” said Amy Holm, a McCall attorney who represented Callister during a July 15 appeal hearing. “This plan, as presented, follows Valley County code to a T.”
The county commissioners agreed with the appeal and on July 29 voted to rescind the P&Z’s denial and move forward with negotiating final conditions of approval with Callister.
“I feel like this is an appropriate use for this area,” Hasbrouck said during the meeting. “The developer has complied with everything that we’ve asked.”
