Neighbors of an embattled subdivision proposal north of Donnelly have filed a lawsuit against Valley County.
The lawsuit, filed April 14 in Fourth Judicial District Court, asks a judge to review the Board of County Commissioners’ Jan. 13 approval of the River Fork Ranch Subdivision.
The subdivision, proposed by Dave Callister of Boise, would build 30 lots on about 44 acres along Spink Lane, about four miles north of Donnelly and three miles south of Lake Fork.
“Development of the subdivision threatens petitioners with distinct and palpable injuries in fact which are fairly traceable to the issuance by the board of (the approval),” the lawsuit said. “The board’s decision prejudices the petitioners’ substantial rights in their real property and due process.”
Plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are David and Cindy Squires, Jeff and Janelle Miller, Marshall Haynes, Peggy McMillen, Kathleen Trever, and Thomas Peppersack, all of whom own property near the subdivision. They are represented by Boise attorney Abigail Germaine of Elam & Burke.
The lawsuit does not specifically say how the county erred in its decision, but seeks District Court Judge Jason Scott’s opinion on whether the decision complies with state laws, local codes, and county planning documents.
The county is being represented in the case by Brian Oakey, chief deputy prosecutor under Valley County Prosecuting Attorney Brian Naugle. Naugle declined to comment on the case on Wednesday, citing pending litigation.
Germaine did not immediately respond to Valley Lookout’s requests for comment on Wednesday.
Complicated history
The lawsuit filed by the neighbors adds another chapter to River Fork Ranch’s complicated history since Callister applied for permitting early in 2024.
The application was denied by the Valley County Planning and Zoning Commission on May 9, 2024, amid concerns that the subdivision would not be compatible with surrounding agricultural lands, county code, or county planning documents.
That decision, however, was overturned by the county commissioners on Sept. 9 following an appeal filed by Callister. The commissioners then vacated that approval after neighbors filed appeals of their own that said the county relied on insufficient evidence for the approval and used improper procedures.
The commissioners reopened the application, then voted for a second time to approve the application on a 2-1 split vote. Commissioners Sherry Maupin and Elt Hasbrouck, who is no longer on the board, voted in favor of approval. Commissioner Neal Thompson was opposed, saying he felt the project was too dense for the location.
Commissioner Katlin Caldwell, who voted against the proposal last year as the chair of the county P&Z, replaced Hasbrouck on the board of county commissioners.
Settlement agreement proposed
The neighbors approached Callister with a settlement offer on April 28, two weeks after the lawsuit was filed against the county.
Although Callister was not named in the lawsuit, he still needed the county to approve a development agreement before construction could begin. The settlement outlined terms that could be added to the development agreement that would ease the neighbors’ concerns.
“We are hopeful this proposal provides perspective on potential remedies the petitioners would entertain in resolving the (lawsuit),” Germaine said in the settlement offer.
Without donors like you, this story would not exist.
Make a donation of any size here
The offer listed six conditions, including the acquisition of more than 200 acres of land owned by Callister. The Squires’ would buy two lots totaling about two acres for $150,000, reducing the size of River Fork Ranch to 28 lots.
Then, the neighbors would collectively pay Callister $500,000 for about 200 acres of wetlands and floodplain that are contiguous to River Fork Ranch.
The settlement offer also sought further assurances related to construction on Spink Lane, the drilling of water wells, dust abatement, septic system maintenance, and restrictions on short-term rentals, among other things.
‘It feels an awful lot like extortion’
Callister told Valley Lookout on Wednesday afternoon that he took issue with the proposed land acquisition, and not just because of what he said was a lowball offer for the land.
“It feels an awful lot like extortion,” he said. “They’re saying to the judge, ‘hey, we were harmed because the county, we believe, made a procedural error. To remedy that error, I want Dave to give me 200 acres.'”
“There’s no nexus between those two things,” Callister said.
The settlement offer inserted the neighbors into negotiations between Callister and the county for a development agreement that the county ultimately approved during a special meeting on Wednesday morning. With the agreement in place, Callister is clear to begin construction.
The negotiations, however, took weeks longer than anticipated, which means Callister lost a June 20 appointment with Idaho Power to install electrical service in River Fork Ranch. That work will now wait until late summer and could delay Callister from having lots ready to build on until next year. It also leaves a crew he hired for this summer with little to do for the next two months.
“They had to come up and sign rental agreements for places to stay for the season,” Callister said. “I had a summer’s worth of work all scheduled out for them, and now I don’t.”
Density and water quality concerns
The settlement offer appeared to center on resolving two of the chief concerns raised by the neighbors in a series of public hearings leading up to the county’s approval of River Fork Ranch.
One of those concerns was that the subdivision could harm grazing and crop production on surrounding lands by polluting water used for irrigation, including groundwater and the nearby Lake Fork Creek.
The land acquisition proposed by the neighbors would help reduce those concerns and provide additional buffering to protect water quality, according to the settlement offer.
The acquisition would also limit potential future phases of development associated with River Fork Ranch, which is part of 320 contiguous acres owned by Callister.
Callister’s representatives told the county that no additional phases of development are planned, despite suggestions to the contrary during a Sept. 9 meeting on the application.
Neighbors sought for the county to ban future phases of development as a condition of approval, but the county declined to do so under the belief it would be an unlawful “taking” of development rights.
River Fork Ranch was initially proposed to allow duplexes on nine of the lots to provide affordable housing, but that plan was scrapped to reduce concerns about density.
