A 30-home subdivision near Donnelly was approved for the second time by Valley County Commissioners late last month.
River Fork Ranch would be built on about 44 acres along Spink Lane about four miles north of Donnelly and three miles south of Lake Fork.
Plans call for 30 single-family lots that would be accessed by private gravel roads and served by groundwater wells and septic systems.
Commissioners split
On Dec. 23, the county commissioners split a vote 2-1 to approve the subdivision, with commissioners Sherry Maupin and Elt Hasbrouck in favor.
Commissioner Neal Thompson dissented, agreeing with public comments that the proposal does not align with the Valley County Comprehensive Plan and would cause traffic problems at the intersection of Idaho 55 and Spink Lane.
“Because it is such a high density, it does not fit,” Thompson said. “This is not the right place for a subdivision, in the middle of the valley floor.”
The split mirrored a previous vote on the application during a Sept. 9 meeting. That approval, however, was vacated in November following an appeal filed by neighboring property owners who said there was insufficient evidence for the approval and that the commissioners did not follow proper procedures.
River Fork Ranch was originally denied by the Valley County Planning and Zoning Commission on May 9, but then approved by the county commissioners on an appeal filed by the developer, David Callister of Garden City.
No future phases planned—for now
One of the major reasons the commissioners cited for reversing the initial approval is a lack of clarity on what River Fork Ranch would look like at full buildout after Callister alluded to possible future phases of development during the Sept. 9 meeting.
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.
Amy Holm, a McCall attorney representing Callister, told commissioners that there are currently no plans for further subdivisions on the adjacent lands.
“This is not a phased plan right now, and I can’t hit that enough,” Holm said. “Lots of development occurs where a developer has an isolated application and they own adjacent property.”
Any future development proposed on the adjacent lands would require a new application and public process, Holm said.
Abby Germaine, a Boise attorney representing six neighbors who appealed the Sept. 9 approval, said future phases should not be allowed under conditions of approval for the subdivision.
“We would encourage the board to do something to solidify that representation today,” Germaine said.
The commissioners ultimately did not do so, with Maupin suggesting it would be an unlawful “taking” of development rights.
Without donors like you, this story would not exist.
Make a donation of any size here
‘Not a dangerous intersection’
Maupin downplayed fears that the 30 new homes would worsen what some neighbors said is already a dangerous intersection at Idaho 55 and Spink Lane.
“There’s been one crash there in the last five years,” Maupin said. “That’s not a dangerous intersection to me.”
Maupin also estimated that 70% of the lots would become second homes that are vacant much of the year and thus would not generate as much traffic.
Safety improvements recommended by Valley County Engineer Dan Coonce would be enforced through a development agreement, which has not yet been finalized.
A traffic analysis requested by the Idaho Transportation Department found that the intersection should be realigned to improve sight lines.
However, ITD cannot enforce that improvement because the subdivision would not abut the highway and is instead about a third of a mile east of it.
Meanwhile, a report commissioned by a neighbor of the proposed subdivision recommended adding northbound and southbound turn lanes on Idaho 55 for vehicles turning onto Spink Lane.
“Failure to require these minor modifications will significantly increase the risk of injury or death to drivers traveling both southbound and northbound,” said David Cavanaugh of Northwest Forensic Crash Reconstruction.
Holm told commissioners that Callister would comply with whatever is ultimately required by the county in the development agreement.
