Ony July 29th, the Blaine County Commissioners voted 3-0 to deny the Quigley Ranch application! If you have a chance tell the Board how grateful this community is for their momentous decision!
Muffy Davis – mdavis@co.blaine.id.us
Angenie McCleary – amccleary@co.blaine.id.us
Lindsay Mollineaux – lmollineaux@co.blaine.id.us
There is now an opportunity for the Quigley Farms Easement, as it’s called by the Wood River Land Trust, to fulfill that vision of open space, wildlife protection, water conservation, and limited recreation.
Background
A large residential development, known as Quigley Ranch, has been proposed for the heart of Quigley Canyon. Consisting of 24 homes on 1 and 2-acre lots, this project would have an enormous impact on the gravel road (paved over for 1/2 of a mile past Quigley Farms), recreation (reduced and less accessible ), traffic (increased), the view corridor (worsened), water (an undefined and undetailed “community water system”), and wildlife (heavily stressed) – to name a few of the consequences.
The “Save Quigley” initiative, including this website, is a grass-roots effort to draw more attention to what’s being discussed, Blaine County’s response, and what you can say/do to encourage County Commissioners, the City of Hailey, and other officials to deny the approval of Quigley Ranch and preserve the canyon before it’s too late. Click here for the latest update. Sign up for email alerts by messaging savequigley@gmail.com.
Quigley Canyon, its wildlife and its water are community assets that need to be protected. It is up to us, the citizens of Blaine County, to make our concerns heard! As of January 2024, over 518 comments have been submitted, the vast majority written in opposition to this development.
Email your comments to pzcounter@co.blaine.id.us
What is Quigley Ranch?
The application has 6 five-acre lots drawn over the the current gravel road, with property boundaries going up the hillside. *These lots have since been removed from the application and been added to the valley floor, adding greater density on the valley floor and reducing the corridors between each cul-de-sac.*
For a more detailed summary of the Quigley Ranch plans, you can review the applicant’s presentation before the Blaine County Commissioners here. You can also read a bit more about the history of the Quigley Ranch application on the Background page.
What can I say to the Commisioners?
Every comment submitted to the commissioners ahead of the final public hearing (likely to be held in June 2024) will help inform our leaders when they make their decision. The template below is both an emotional and technical/adminstrative argument against the current Quigley Ranch application. Please feel free to copy/paste as desired. It’s our hope that if to have what we consider the strongest points be continually reiterated.
Email your comments to pzcounter@co.blaine.id.us
Dear Commissioners Davis, McCleary and Mollineaux,
As a concerned citizen of Blaine County, I ask that you deny the Quigley Ranch application. Your decision on this extremely important matter will have long-term generational impacts, and I am grateful for the diligence and care the Board has brought to the many hearings thus far. The people of Blaine County are overwhelmingly opposed to further construction and development in Quigley Canyon. The members of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that you deny the application. The independent wildlife study agreed with Idaho Fish and Game: Quigley Ranch will have significant negative impacts. All Planned Unit Developments must comply with Zoning (Title 9) and Subdivision (Title 10) standards and, as repeated public comment has shown, many of these regulations remain unmet. The Quigley Conservation Easement was established in 2017 and does not depend on this application for its survival. The rationale for denial has only become clearer since your first hearing on Quigley Ranch.
As we near the conclusion of this years-long process, please remember that a Key Guiding Principle for Land Use in the Blaine County Comprehensive Plan reads: “Natural environmental attributes, including scenic vistas, public open space, healthy forests and sagebrush steppe, clean water and air, and abundant fish and wildlife, are the heart and soul of our community.” Please enforce the applicable regulations of Blaine County, embrace this vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, listen to your constituents, and deny the application before you.
Save Quigley.
Violations and Unmet Standards of County Regulations and Policies (Quigley Ranch Application)
Sections 10-5-1, 10-5-2, and 10-5-3 in the Blaine County code, all of which outline subdivision design standards, begin with the premise that, “No preliminary plat application shall be considered by the Board or commission until the Administrator makes a positive finding with regard to each of the following standards.” I’ve listed below the standards that the P&Z Commission found not to be met (and continue to be unmet after various design changes). All quotes are from the Sept 19 staff report.
10-5-3 Design Standards (B. Lot Requirements) – 3. Each lot shall have access to an internal street or drive, where practicable.
This standard was found not to be met on a 6-0 vote since access would be better achieved through Quigley Farms. The applicant was told this over a year ago and continued to sell lots in Quigley Farms rather than pause development to meet the necessary access standards for Quigley Ranch.
10-5-3 Design Standards (C. Blocks) – Blocks shall be designed to assure traffic safety and ease of traffic control and circulation.
This standard was found not to be met on a 6-0 vote since 6 driveways and 3 roads were originally proposed to intersect with Quigley Rd. Even though the 6 driveways are gone, it’s important to consider the 3 access roads planned to intersect with Quigley Rd leading into the Farms subdivision. That’s 6 total intersections with Quigley Rd. The Commission commented that these issues could be resolved by accessing Ranch through Farms. Again, the developer spent the last year ignoring this advice and selling lots in Quigley Farms.
10-5-3 Design Standards (M. Design Of Subdivisions Within Or Adjacent To Lands Zoned A-20, A-40, R-10 Or RR-40) – Subdivisions shall be designed to preserve natural, open space and scenic resources, protect sensitive areas such as riparian areas, wetlands, wildlife habitat and wildlife migration corridors, and watercourses, and reduce impact on neighboring properties.
The Commission found this standard not to be met, “due to the development’s impact.” A straight lot subdivision with 24 (or fewer) homes lining the boundary with Farms would better satisfy this standard.
10-5-3 Design Standards (N. Street Improvements) – 1. Conformance To Plans: Streets shall in general conform with the comprehensive plan, other accepted plans, the provisions of this title and title 6 of this code.
Again, the commission voted 6-0, arguing that Quigley Ranch “does not comply with the comprehensive plan as designed. The Commission recommends the street access to the subdivision could be through Quigley Farm Subdivision.” Over and over again the developer was told to pursue access through Farms. Only in the last few weeks have they made any effort to do so. Instead they ignored P&Z’s findings and sold more and more lots in Quigley Farms, complicating the county’s ability to enforce its own codes.
10-5-3 Design Standards (N. Street Improvements) -4. Location: d. Dead end streets are prohibited.
From the Blaine County staff report, “The Commission found that the dead end cul-de-sacs are proposed as permanent and therefore do not comply with standards.” With so many unmet standards, it’s no wonder that this basic element of their design is being overlooked. That doesn’t make it any less valid.
10-5-3 Design Standards (N. Street Improvements) -4. Location: e. Cul-de-sac streets shall be discouraged.
Again, the Commission found the standard not to be met, as “topography does not dictate their use.” For over a year, the developer has chosen to ignore the Commission’s recommendation to redesign the cul-de-sacs to satisfy this ordinance.
10-5-3 Design Standards (R. Wildlife) – Lands in the wildlife overlay district shall be developed as permitted by title 9, chapter 20 of this code.
The Commission found that the standard not to be met, suggesting that BOTH the hillside lots be removed AND the remaining lots be consolidated to the mouth of the canyon. Obviously the developer ignored the latter recommendation. Fewer lots, or a different layout closer to the boundary with Farms, would be much more appropriate for Class II Lands. Moreover, in its comment on 2-18-22 IDFG disagreed with the developer’s assessment that “Substantial impacts to elk and deer migration and wintering habitat are not anticipated.”
10-6-7 Simple Planned Unit Development (B. Open Space And Recreation Areas & C. Efficient Use Of Land)
The Commission found that General PUD standards not to be met. It was suggested that the developer condense “the development so it abuts the existing city limits allowing for a larger contiguous parcel of uninterrupted open space for preservation of character & better quality wildlife habitat.” I see only minimal efforts to follow this recommendation. Repeatedly the developer was told to condense and consolidate closer to Hailey city limits. They have blatantly chosen not to.
We also have very serious concerns about the supply and future use of water in Quigley Canyon. You have received expert testimony arguing both sides of this complicated issue. Determining whether Quigley Ranch in fact meets 10-5-3 Design Standard (F. Water Supply) will require a County-led initiative. As a concerned citizen, I urge the Board to seek an impartial, peer-reviewed water balance for the entire Quigley Farms and Ranch subdivisions.
I am grateful to the Quigley Farms and Conservation Community for the easement, the access, and the recreation. However, our county does not operate on quid pro quo agreements. As proposed, Quigley Ranch fails to meet 8 regulatory standards (possibly 9 if you include water) for subdivisions in Blaine County. Your own P&Z Commission recommended denial. If you don’t reject this application or require that they make changes to satisfy multiple county ordinances, you will set a tragic precedent for how things get accomplished in this community.
Contact Your Commissioners Today!
Commissioner McCleary, Commisioner Davis, and Commissioner Mollineaux represent the interests of Blaine County voters. If you’re opposed to Quigley Ranch, let them know by sending an email to pzcounter@co.blaine.id.us. The wave of opposition thus far is a major reason why the developer retreated into mediation. Add your name to the list – We can still save Quigley!
47 responses to “Quigley Canyon Needs Our Help!”
-
I read the following letter out loud at the 11-13-2024 Public Hearing.
November 13, 2024
Blaine County Commissioners
Old County Courthouse
206 1st Avenue South, Suite 300
Hailey, Idaho 83333Subject: Reconsidering Quigley Ranch Public Hearing
Reference: October 4, 2024 Idaho Mountain Express frontpage story by Emily Jones
Dear Commissioners Davis, McCleary, Mollineaux:
Following the money trail like Julia Roberts did in the Pelican Brief, we find presiding over the Quigley Canyon development ideal: a single spreadsheet cell called Return on Investment, ROI, three symbols embedded in our DNA, the source code for hunter-gatherers on a Cartesian plane, placed there by the creator of the show don’t tell paradox.
Eight weeks ago, a longtime Quigley activist called out to me on horseback. I was walking home into the setting sun on Quigley Road, having walked out to the Nancy Cooley memorial bench after work, and she was riding around the Quigley Farm Phase II grounds looking for noxious weeds that understood can be eradicated with selective parasites. Then she brought up Quigley Ranch, and the fact that the developer is contesting the county’s July 29, 2024 decision to deny the proposed subdivision application.
A couple weeks later, I grabbed a copy of the Friday, October 4th edition of the Idaho Mountain Express at the CSI campus, before a BCRD class, and stuffed it in my daypack for later reading and digesting. And over the weekend: I read the “Quigley Ranch developer contests application denial” frontpage story by Emily Jones multiple times, attempting to digest what was printed and what could be at stake, mainly that the applicant, Mr. Hennessy, may choose to halt public access to his land for recreational endeavors, or he may sell it, if the county upholds its denial decision.
Then walking around Quigley Farm on Monday, I took possession of a marketing brochure and noted that access to BCRD trails is mentioned and promoted. So, ideally, the developer can make a decent living at developing Quigley Farm, Phase II and beyond, while preserving elk and mule deer access to their five-thousand-year-old migration route through Quigley Canyon.
As for Mr. Laski’s seven-page September 3rd letter, referenced and quoted in the paper, it sounds meanspirited, and may fail to mention the fact that widespread public input, over the last two plus years in the form of written and spoken testimony, has been a factor in the ongoing story of Quigley Canyon. Save it—or lose it. Democracy is hard work. And that brings us to what comes next: a Return on Imagination experiment featuring the Solar Affection Effect in action, the key to engaging climate change with compassion. Yes. Framed with a spherical coordinate system in mind, the land we are calling Quigley Ranch wants to help transform an evolutionary dead end into a beacon of hope—trusting in the power of light—the gateway to healing the earth and all of us on it.
Thank you for this timely public hearing. Namaste—
Sincerely,
Mark Casson
Cc: Save Quigley Canyon website
-
I emailed the following letter to our county commissioners yesterday.
October 8, 2024
Blaine County Commissioners
Old County Courthouse
206 1st Avenue South, Suite 300
Hailey, Idaho 83333Subject: Quigley Ranch: Democracy at Work in Blaine County, Idaho
Reference: October 4, 2024 Idaho Mountain Express frontpage story by Emily Jones
Dear Commissioners Davis, McCleary, Mollineaux:
Two weeks ago, a longtime Quigley activist hailed me on horseback. I was walking home into the setting sun on Quigley Road, having walked out to the Nancy Cooley memorial bench after work, and she was riding around the Quigley Farm Phase II grounds looking for noxious weeds that I understood can be eradicated with weed-unfriendly parasites. Then she brought up Quigley Ranch, and the fact that the developer is contesting the county’s July 29, 2024 decision to deny the proposed Quigley Ranch subdivision application.
Last Friday I grabbed a copy of the October 4, 2024 edition of the Idaho Mountain Express at the CSI campus before Senior Strength class, offered by the BCRD, and stuffed it in my daypack for later reading and digesting. And over the weekend: I read the “Quigley Ranch developer contests application denial” frontpage story by Emily Jones multiple times, attempting to digest what was printed and what could be at stake, mainly that the applicant may choose to reduce public access to his land for recreational endeavors, or he may sell it, if the county upholds its denial decision.
That said, several years ago, after the Great Recession had played out, the City of Hailey denied Mr. Hennessy’s request to annex part of his land into the city, and his reaction was to terminate public access to Quigley Hill the next day (I was there when he put the signage up) and eliminate access to the BCRD Nordic skiing grounds the following season. The landowner west of Quigley Hill then put up signs, identifying an alternative route to reach public land, aka. Quigley Hill, and the BCRD chose to relocate its south valley Nordic skiing operation to Croy Canyon.
Walking around Quigley Farm yesterday, I took possession of a marketing brochure for the first time and noted that access to BCRD trails is mentioned and promoted. So, ideally, the developer can make a decent living at developing Quigley Farm, Phase II and beyond, while preserving elk and mule deer access to their five-thousand-year-old migration route through Quigley Canyon.
As for Mr. Laski’s seven-page letter, referenced and quoted in the paper, it sounds meanspirited, and may fail to mention the fact that widespread public input, over the last two plus years in the form of spoken and written testimony, has been a factor in the ongoing story of Quigley Canyon. Save it—or lose it. Democracy is hard, rewarding work.
And like Michelle Obama says: “When they go low, we go high.” Thank you for your service.
Sincerely,
Mark Casson
Cc: Save Quigley Canyon website
-
I am a little confused by your most recent update. You say above “There is now an opportunity for the Quigley Farms Easement, as it’s called by the Wood River Land Trust, to fulfill that vision of open space, wildlife protection, water conservation, and limited recreation.”
But it is my understanding that the landowner donated this land to the conservation easement/WRLT to protect the majority of the 1,200 acres. BUT the easement also allows for development on the 70ish acres where 24 homes were proposed to sit. If the agreement allows for the development of this land, what will happen to this agreement now that the county denied the application? This is still private property.
The owners did bring up the option to sell the property in one of the county meetings. The new owner may not agree to the terms that are being proposed or have been agreed on thus far. I will be interested to see how this plays out, but as a recreational user of this space, I am a little worried that we may lose access if the terms of the easement get renegotiated.-
Hi Sam, I just saw this comment. My bad! Those are great questions and I’ll answer them in order.
1.) The Easement does have a “future buildings envelopes” clause, the allowance, like you mentioned, for 24 homes on 73 acres. The Easement (Paragraph 13) also states, “the inability of the Landowner, his successors and assigns, to conduct or implement any or all of the uses permitted under the terms of this Easement, or the unprofitability of doing so, shall not impair the validity of this Easement or be considered grounds for its termination or extinguishment.” When drawing up this Easement, all parties involved made huge assumptions regarding the PUD approval, at the County level. Fortunately the WRLT knows what they’re doing and had the foresight to protect the integrity of the Easement should the County deny a subdivision application, which they did and had every right to do. The recent decision in no way de-legitimizes the larger conservation agreement.
2.) It’s impossible to predict what a new owner would do out there. One thing to consider, however, is that the recreational amenities you’ve been enjoying have also been integral to the marketing and sales of lots in Quigley Farms. Any elimination of the nordic skiing, for example, would not be viewed favorably by the property owner’s (current or future) own HOA. Scrapping the current management plan with the BCRD would likely land them in hot water with the dozens of Quigley Farms lot/homeowners who also like to nordic ski and use the perimeter trail – and bought in with the intention of doing so.
To be clear, Quigley Road, the bike park, and the new Silver Linings trail are not on private property.
-
-
Thank you for informing the public on this proposed development.
I agree with all the points re: water, wildlife, but I also worry about quality of life. I spend countless hours out Quigley nordic skiing, walking my dogs on the road, or using the mountain bike trails. This attribute is what makes this area so special and one of the few options if you live in the south part of the valley to be able to get outdoors without walking in a development. Being able to be in the open outdoors within minutes is wonderful and it would be sad if it were not an option. This is all about greed from these developers building housing that only a select few could afford. Just ask the long time residents of places like Park City/Heber/Midway or Jackson Hole how they feel about unrestricted development. You can’t reverse something like this and it would be detrimental to the quality of life of those residents that currently enjoy this and need this for their mental and physical well being.
I have sent an email opposing the development as suggested.
Keep up the good work on getting the message out and informing the public.
-
Thanks for the comment, Suzanne! I’m from Park City and what I’ve seen happen there is a big reason I’ve tried to highlight what’s going on and encourage people to get involved. I should mention that the owners of both Quigley Farms and the proposed Quigley Ranch should be thanked for partnering with the BCRD and allowing the nordic skiing and creation of the perimeter trail. Their efforts to expand recreation opportunity should be applauded. However, we feel that Quigley Ranch is an unnecessary overstep, detrimental to water/wildlife/quality of life, and should be stopped.
-
-
Thank you so much. This information is presented beautifully and clarifies many legal and environmental issues related to this project. This valuable information allows me more power as a member of this ever-growing community, and it is greatly appreciated. Armed with more knowledge and conviction, I will reach out to our Blaine County commissioners.
Thank you again.
Best,
Nancy Harakay-
You’re welcome, Nancy! Land use applications can be very dense and confusing. While Save Quigley is clearly opposed to Quigley Ranch, our primary goal is to educate the community about what the application means and encourage anyone who appreciates Blaine County’s beautiful and important open spaces to get involved.
-
-
(I emailed the following letter describing a peer review of the proposed Quigley Ranch subdivision water system to our Blaine County commissioners.)
November 13, 2023
Blaine County Commissioners
Old County Courthouse
206 1st Avenue South, Suite 300
Hailey, Idaho 83333Subject: Proposed Quigley Ranch Subdivision Water System Peer Review
Reference: November 8, 2023 Public Hearing
Dear Commissioners Davis, McCleary, Mollineaux:
This letter supports a peer review of the proposed Quigley Ranch subdivision water system as proposed (by you…) during the November 8, 2023 public hearing. A peer review is a good idea; and I understood, from the applicant, that water leaving Quigley Pond is currently running into the ground. And surveying the scene, the pond level appears to have been lowered 6-12 inches the last couple years, perhaps to dry up the stream that used to flow over the new BCRD trail on the south side of the dam. As for the diesel-engine-driven pressure pump, fuel tank, and piping for the derelict bottomland irrigation system, they remain in place right below the dam.
And if it was me performing the peer review—my background is engineering and construction—I would request Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams for the proposed Quigley Ranch subdivision water system as well as a Design Criteria document describing the system and its fault tolerance, plus an Operating Instructions document that describes how to operate the system in all modes. I would also request the P&IDs and support documents for the Quigley Farms water system, since the applicant claims the two systems will be coupled through the QF water recovery plant.
In addition, I would request an Execution Plan for installing and commissioning the proposed Quigley Ranch water system, and for building out and testing the Quigley Farms water system. Yes, the idea is to flushout unknowns and potential problems before “walking the job down” with the applicant’s engineer and/or the county engineer. That said, the applicant’s Execution Plan should include a task-driven schedule showing the tasks required to install and commission the proposed Quigley Ranch water system that will include 24 new homeowner wells and a fire-suppression cistern. Fault tolerance is key, as is the transient response and steady-state stability of the coupled systems, especially in the event of a countywide power outage. And finally, the main peer-review deliverable should be an elegant report, neutral in nature, even though further subdividing Quigley Canyon as proposed by the applicant would be an unparalleled tragedy.
Sincerely,
Mark Casson
PS: One’s heart is the only thing that one works for, everything else takes two or more.
Cc: Save Quigley Canyon website
-
(I read the following letter to our Blaine County commissioners at the 10-25-2023 public hearing, and then emailed them the file as an attachment.)
October 25, 2023
Dear Commissioners Davis, McCleary, Mollineaux:
Remember when the 14th Dalai Lama was here in Blaine County, delivering his 9/11 Healing Address? It was on September 11, 2005 at Homer Field, a fortnight after Hurricane Katrina leveled New Orleans. “Don’t give up on the world,” the Dalai Lama said that day, an Idaho day, with white puffy clouds punctuating the azure sky. And down below in Quigley Canyon was a working farm, irrigated with surface water, growing hay for livestock. And after the last cut, followed by the sheep dog trials, the land rested, while Nordic skiers, like farmers, prayed for snow and a white Christmas. Yes. And a heartfelt thank you to the landowner for allowing us to recreate on private ground. It was an enlightened time for the county, one in which we import essentially everything but water and sunlight.
And now, eighteen years later, with Quigley Farm Phase 2 underway, a waypoint for the county, placed there by the city of Hailey, let’s imagine the evolving Quigley Canyon story is a piece of concept art, the concept being: we are what we share, including with our brothers and sisters in the wild kingdom, who have no voice at public hearings. Yes, they do, and if we listen with our hearts, what we hear is their plea to change course, as further subdividing Quigley Canyon, as proposed by the Quigley Ranch development team, is out of phase with progress, with evolution. Whether we like it or not, some big archetypal wheels are turning on this wild blue planet, our only home, with divide and conquer mythology giving way to bond and cherish dynamics. And so, exercising restraint, let’s not move the development boundary any farther upstream, further stressing wildlife, and us, while leaving less open space for decompressing, especially in winter, when the Quigley Canyon Nordic Center comes alive.
As for the Quigley Ranch development team, I applaud its performance, getting us to this point, another waypoint in the story we’re making up as we go. That said, I encourage the development team to change course by returning the idle Quigley Canyon bottomland to production, out to the pond. Then, seated on the new memorial bench, halfway out, we may one day see a state-of-the-art solar power unit out in the field shaped like a wheel, a medicine wheel, supporting an array of hemispherical solar cells, producing electricity through the Solar Affection Effect, a dream come true, the first breakthrough in energy conversion since 1905, driven by—never giving up.
Thank you for listening.
Onward, to the dawn’s early light!Sincerely,
Mark Casson
Hailey, Idaho -
Please save Quigley!
Speak for the trees, speak for the wildlife!
No to Quigley Ranch.
-
(This comment has also been submitted directly to the Commisioners)
As a life long Idaho resident I am opposed to the Quiqley project. Where on earth is the water coming from? And not to mention our wildlife loses space every day. This should not be allowed. The last few years a huge heard of elk hang in my neighborhood because they are losing space so quickly. The moose also come but not so much when the elk are near. So it’s prime cougar hunting in our town of Hailey. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what is happening. We need to stop the greed of the big corporations. Keep Hailey one of the most beautiful gems of our state. No to Quigley ranch project. Thanks Kitty Black
-
International Fire Code appendix D, 107.7 states that any development with more than 30 “dwelling units” must have 2 access roads that are 26’ wide. Quigley Ranch is proposed at 26 lots. Quigley Road is proposed at 20’ wide. The proposed road width allows for 30 dwelling units, no more. Meaning only 4 accessory dwelling units in the subdivision. If more than 30 dwelling units exist, the entire subdivision must have another access road with both roads at 26’.
I suggest the Board add a plat note and a condition of approval limiting ADUs to the 2 acre lots in accordance with state statute requiring only one residential unit per acre. This condition would limit dwelling units to 28 and keep the subdivision in conformance with IFC in the future. The note should specifically state that if more than 30 dwelling units exist the road must be brought up to International Fire Code standards. There should also be a note stating that lots can not be further subdivided unless these 2 issues are resolved.
If the county is not willing to limit future subdivision and ADUs in Quigley Ranch, then the road must be widened to 26’ and another means of egress other than Quigley Road must be constructed. -
Whoops, I forgot to mention (in a postscript) that I emailed my comments directly to our three commissioners.
Best,
Mark Casson -
September 25, 2023
Dear Commissioners Davis, McCleary, Mollineaux:
We hold this truth to be self-evident, that the proposed Quigley Ranch subdivision is out of phase with what we hold dear as Americans, voiced by Woody Guthrie in “This Land is Your Land,” his signature song.
And having just listened to it, performed by Peter, Paul and Mary, I encourage you to please do the same before approving or denying the proposed Quigley Ranch subdivision.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mark Casson
Hailey, Idaho -
(This comment was also submitted directly to the Blaine County commissioners)
Dear Commissioners Davis, McCleary, and Mollineaux,
I’m writing to ask, actually, implore you all to say “NO” to the proposed Quigley Ranch application.
Many individuals have gone to great lengths to do their homework and to state some very valid reasons why this proposal should not go through. I strongly feel that if this application is granted a “yes” vote it will have far-reaching, irreparable consequences, many that have been pointed out as somewhat obvious, but sadly, many others that we can even comprehend yet.
One of my favorite quotes is something I adapted from a John Burroughs quote. It reads:
“I go to nature to be healed and soothed and to have my senses put in tune once more”
That quote does a really nice job of summing up what Quigley means to me personally and I can’t help but think that it probably does the same for countless others as well.
Quigley offers so much to so many, not only the wildlife that was here long before us, but as humans. She (Quigley) bestows on us many gifts and opportunities for solitude, peace, tranquility, a place for recreation and to connect with friends, a place to connect with ourselves, with Spirit, God, Creator or whatever you choose to call the power of all that is. Quigley offers us all who live and vacation here a place to quiet our minds and nurture our souls. She affords us the space to think clearly so we can reset, realign, and recalibrate our mind-set, our heart-set, and our soul-set.
When I see others out there in the Canyon hiking, biking, connecting with friends, I can’t help but feel a quiet sense of joy, a connection and gratitude for what I am sharing with them at that moment. And I can’t help but wonder if they are feeling it too.
Personally, whether I’m walking, reading, writing, meditating etc. I feel a sense sacredness, of reverence and gratitude for all of the beauty that surrounds us all here in the Wood River Valley. In fact, I like to think that beauty is the common denominator that brought all of us here.
So, whether we realize it or not, when we are experiencing feelings such as joy and gratitude on a soul level, we can’t help but bring that back into our community. Those feelings of joy, gratitude and appreciation are reflected back into our community with the way that we treat one another. The simple acts of kindness, compassion, love and respect that we show one another is a reflection of that state of gratitude that we all live in.
The tourists see it, they feel it, they want to be part of it! The sense of belonging, the kindness and connectedness, those are the things that they are drawn to. They might not be able to put their finger on what it is, but they feel and they want it.
Our valley as a whole vibrates on a higher level and it’s BECAUSE OF PLACES LIKE QUIGLEY!
So, once again, I implore you so say “NO” to Quigley Ranch development. We still have a chance to do the right thing, to make the conscious decision to save this absolute treasure.
I thank you all, Trish Raziano
P.S. Next Tuesday, September 26th, my husband and I will celebrate 30 years of living in the Wood River valley. And yes, we still celebrate having made the choice to move to such a special place. We’re both extremely grateful and proud to call it home for the past 30 years and to have made the decision to raise our two children here.When I was pregnant with them, I used to walk out Quigley and communicate with them, often out loud I only hope that I can one day share this canyon with my grandkids and to tell them that we, as a community, succeeded in saving this sacred open space to share with them and future generations to come.
P.S.S.
This is something I wrote in a journal while sitting out at the Quigley Pond many years ago.
Quigley my Quigley,
walking on sacred ground.Quigley my Quigley,
not a soul around.Quigley my Quigley,
a feast for the senses all round.Quigley my Quigley,
your gifts for all abound.~ Trish Raziano
-
(This comment was also submitted directly to the Blaine County commissioners)
Dear Muffy,
More animals will die from added car/truck traffic further out Quigley Canyon beyond Quigley Ranch. More people will be breathing exhaust fumes while walking/skiing along the road being traveled by more gas vehicles. Thank you for resisting more development out that beautiful canyon. I support no more development, not even smaller houses as that will be even more cars. Thank you very much for guarding our remaining urban/wildlife interfaces.
Penelope Street-
Hi, I made an error in my first comment.
I called Quigley Farms Quigley Ranch. I am against Quigley Ranch extending development beyond Quigley Farms. It will take a big chunk of wild/farm land out of the conservation easement. We must stop indulging in the second / third/ 13th homes of people who don’t really LIVE here. I’m against moving the road around also. And I treasure our Hillside Ordinance over all. Please continue to protect our conservative plans for Quigley Canyon. Thank you
-
-
(This comment was also submitted directly to the Blaine County commissioners)
Please do not let the developer use this land to disrupt Quigley. It is our family’s favorite place to hike, bike, cross-country ski, and sled. By allowing this development you are taking away a vital part of the Hailey Communities recreation area.
-
Pointing out problems is easy. Try suggesting a helpful resolution. Mediation works toward resolution; it is not a retreat. The City cannot just say no to all private development, but they can make suggestions and require alterations to the proposal. To make a constructive difference, offer them solutions to utilize instead of just complaints.
-
Hey Jordan, thanks for the feedback. I completely agree that the County can’t just say no to all private development. However, when you look at Quigley Canyon, which just a few years ago was a marvelous and untrammelled open space, there has already been significant compromise in the form of Quigely Farms going through (same developer). Quigley Ranch is where we’re drawing the line. Blaine County’s Comprehensive Plan has a framework for land use and the complete development of Quigley Canyon (as it stands only 40 developable acres will remain as open space between the Sage School and the pond) is an egregious violation of the stated values and desired outcomes. This isn’t an in-fill residential project, a requested hotel variance downtown, or the kind of thing where we could meet in the middle. Quigley Ranch is a huge encroachment on a very sensitive ecological and recreational area that can’t be undone.
Mediation, in this specific scenario, was also not a transparent process working toward resolution, but an opportunity for the developer to work with officials without the public being properly informed about the discussion. They were trying to work out a resolution that suited their needs, not those of community – which is why they didn’t want the latter to be included in mediation.
Finally, as far as constructive solutions go, we have lots of ideas – but first we need to see the current application denied. As a small group of citizens, we’re limited in what we can achieve with regards to time, money, and expertise. If the Quigley Ranch proposal is denied, I assure you that this website will be devoted to working with the land owner, the WRLT, and the County on a better future for the remainder of the canyon.
-
-
I strongly oppose this development going deeply into the canyon. No homes on the hillside lots 1-6, no paving/moving the road. Too much encroachment on wildlife.
-
(This comment was also submitted directly to the Commisioners)
Dear Commissioners,
Coming off a banner season at the Quigley Canyon Nordic Center, may we all rejoice in having had the option to embrace a unique winter sports experience, one featuring more skiing and less driving. Yes. And a heart-felt thanks to the land owner.
As for the proposed Quigley Ranch project, it’s founded on bait-and-switch tactics (a form of deception), and hence should be denied approval. Building upon a foundation of deception, well—that’s a last resort.
Thank you for reading my comments. Onward, to the dawn’s early light!
Sincerely,
Mark Casson
Hailey, Idaho -
(This comment was also submitted directly to the Commisioners)
Good evening Commissioners McCleary and Davis,
I’m confused in the value our community’s future. It’s no secret that we have water issues and those issues are not going away.
We have wildlife issues in sharing our lands with the animals and the animals are absolutely on the losing side.
We used to have hillside ordinance restrictions on building for reasons I believe were a to keep visuals of our lands to nature and not somebody’s residence -those are now starting to be erroded.
Now these rules and laws are being slowly dismissed and Quigley Farms is asking you to let them break these laws because they have investors that want more? And more? And more?
If the plan is to keep squeezing out with a little water and natural beauty from here then it’s working. I believe about 15 years ago or more Wendy Pabich was hired by the city on Quigley Farms previous proposal, and the city turned it downbecause of water and wildlife I believe. I could be wrong of the reasons. Either way people are coming to move here and unless you continue with the values the natural lens then we might as well start getting street lights and selling off the mountain hillsides and tops so we can start putting homes on the hills for everybody not just a few, remove the rest of the wolves, kill off the cougars because they’re scaring people, and watch the birds, coyotes, wildlife etc. be wiped out all together. I heard a quote the other day that was “no is a complete sentence”.Thank you,
Paul Bernstein -
Thanks for your comment, Jim. I appreciate the opportunity to widen the discussion and counter your arguments.
To begin with, the idea of this being a “nimby” effort is ludicrous. We are opposing a 24-home high end residential development that will drastically alter the character of a canyon that is currently accessible and enjoyed by thousands of people. Yes, Quigley Canyon is in our backyard – but the “our” is hardly just neighbors living near the mouth of the canyon. Citizens from up and down the valley want to preserve Quigley as it is. This isn’t a little minority of angry curmudgeons.
Our concerns about the Quigley Ranch proposal are wide-ranging and defensible.
Recreation: of course in Idaho we have endless amounts of public lands to enjoy. However, the quality of life in the Wood River Valley is slowly eroded when access points, such as Quigley, are pushed further out. The citizens of Blaine County have to right to fight for a gentle, unpaved county road that they can quickly enjoy after work, in a pinch, and as they age.
Wildlife: to think that another 75 acres of development isn’t going to negatively affect elk, deer, and pronghorn just because Quigley Farms already exists is naive. In February of 2022, Idaho Fish Game submitted a comment to Blaine County in repsonse to the Quigley Ranch proposal (https://www.co.blaine.id.us/DocumentCenter/View/18589/B-11-IDFG-2-18-2022), writing: “The loss of big game winter habitat to development and recreational use has significant implications for wildlife in the Wood River Valley. Currently, the south-facing slopes east of Hailey and Ketchum, including Quigley Canyon, contain most of the last quality winter range in the Wood River Valley that is used by mule deer and elk in severe winters. If current trends of development and associated recreational/residential use in the vicinity persist, these areas are not expected to continue supporting winter populations of big game.” The development of Quigley Ranch, as well as the associated push of recreators further down the canyon due to the road changes, will have an undeniable impact on species already under duress.
Water: despite the long and wet winter, the West is experiencing an unprecedented mega drought. The water rights owned by Quigley Ranch are greater on paper than there is water available in Quigley Creek. They’re also quite senior. Any conversation about water can quickly get confusing, but, in essence, if Quigley Ranch is successful there will be additional and unneccessary strain on the watershed.
Housing: I can’t deny that Quigley Ranch would be a fantastic place to raise a family. But who will afford to live there? Given the size of the properties in question (1-5 acres), this development will be reserved for the ultra-wealthy. Moreover, how many of those homes will even be lived in full time? What I see is a potentially gross misappropriation of municipal services for the support of the wrong type of housing.
Finally, while it’s obviously important to respect property rights, a developer nonetheless has an obligation to abide by local P&Z codes and regulations. In an effort to manage growth, quality of life, and related environmental impacts, Blaine County drew up a comprehensive plan, by which all developments are measured before approval or rejection. The P&Z commission cited dozens of failures in the Quigley Ranch proposal, regularly reffering to criteria outlined in the comprehensive plan, and rightly RECOMMENDED DENIAL of the design. It’s also relevant to note that the county has no obligation to approve a PUD, moving a county road (what they want) or granting an amendment to build on the hillside (also what they want). Quigley Ranch is not well-planned development. It’s a damaging proposal in more ways than one and its success would result in a tragic loss for our community as a whole.
-
talk about nimby …… we are surrounded by probably 1 million acres to recreate. this is private property and the owner has paid their fair share of taxes to support our schools, police and fire departments. if you don’t want them to develop what they have rights to (same as you on your property), get a petition together and buy it. I’ll pay my share . maybe a larger parking area at the extended road would be useful. this area will provide a great place to raise a family. and for those suggesting we will disturb the wildlife ……… we are already doing that with our current usage. look at all the great improvements on the south side. i welcome the well planned development constructed to date.
-
(This comment was also submitted directly to county commissioners)
Dear Commissioners McCleary and Davis,
Mirroring what others from the community have voiced, we strongly oppose further development of Quigley beyond Quigley farm and on the hillsides, and feel the road should not be paved but be maintained as it is. We also request that all discussions related to Quigley Canyon be kept open to the public.
The canyon provides outdoor recreation year-round for residents and is truly cherished by the community. We live on Shoshone dr. and frequently visit the canyon, going there three or more times a week to walk our dog, hike, bike, or skate ski. Visiting Quigley is often the most enjoyable part of our day. It is extremely upsetting to hear that the area could face such development. There is no question, further development of the area would do irreversible harm to the wildlife habitat, water resources, and impact year-round recreation.
We moved here because of the proximity to the natural environment and all that Quigley offers to us and the community, and ask that you please deny additional development in Quigley Canyon. Please preserve this treasured space.
Thank you for your time.
-
(This comment was also submitted directly to county commissioners)
Dear Commissioners McCleary and Davis,
I do not live in Hailey, but I fully support the DENIAL of Quigley Ranch. We’re losing valuable open spaces all up and down the valley to development. When will it stop? Long time locals never thought this valley would turn into what Park City / Vail / Aspen / Moab etc. has become and that is where we’re headed with developments like this on the hillside and in unwelcome natural areas that need to be protected.
This valley corridor and all its canyons can only take so much. We cannot continue to keep building hoping that it will all work out in the long run. It saddens me that so many long time locals and friends are looking for other small towns to move to because of the direction ours is moving.
Please do not allow a mediation and please vote against this project. The public needs to be included in any proposal out the canyon. I agree with all the comments in this thread and hope our voices are being heard.
Thank you for your time.
-
Here is my comment to the commissioners if anyone would like to use any or all of these talking points.
At this point, I am sure that you have heard a plethora of comments about the Quigley Ranch development. So, before I chime in, I just wanted to say thank you for representing Blaine County and the voices of the taxpaying citizens.
I oppose the Quigley Ranch development and I believe that negotiations and mediations should not be closed to the public. This is a public road that will be altered in a way that does not positively impact the majority of tax paying individuals (technically it will only benefit 24 landowners). Here are my reasons:
1) The changes that this development will have on an already narrowing wildlife corridor.
2) The drawing of more water in a time where there is an ongoing water shortage
3) The danger of natural disasters such as wildfires and avalanches and the strain this would have on our public service providers (whom the taxpayers pay for).
4) The increased chance of spreading invasive plant species into public land from landscaping techniques of the new homes.
5) The safety of the hundreds of people who walk this road for recreation (not only when they are working, but the added traffic from the proposed parking area at the end of the road).
6) The hillside ordinance change can have permanent impacts for future developments creeping up the hillsides. This piece alone keeps our valley as a standout community when compared to other resort communities with no hillside ordinance. Examples would be Aspen and Jackson Hole.
7) This is a public road that accesses thousands of acres of BLM and forest service land which will be undergoing permanent, unnecessary changes that will directly and indirectly impact the longevity of these wild spaces that will never be reversed.The potential impacts of this development are not worth the chance of permanent damage to our community and ecosystem.
Thank you for reading my comments and for advocating for the public to be involved in this decision that has direct effects on the taxpayers who have already shown overwhelming opposition to this matter.
I hope you have a great weekend.
Sincerely,
-
Thank you for keeping the public aware. It seems like this went into the dark in the last few months and it almost did. However, you saved it. So, I hope this outreach and specifically commenting directly to the commissioners works. One word of advice based on a few comments I read (this is just to make our voices more powerful): Keep in mind that public access to BLM will still be granted through this proposal. What is changing is the direct and indirect impacts the development will have on the longevity of this access and wild area. Speak up and spread the word! Thanks again!
-
(This comment was also submitted directly to county commissioners)
Please do not let the developer use this land to disrupt Quigley. It is our families favorite place to hike, bike, cross country ski and sled. By allowing this development you are taking away a vital part of the Hailey Communities recreation area.
-
(This comment was also submitted directly to commissioners)
Dear Commissioners April 5 2023
I was in attendance when Developers requested mediation. I was appalled and do not know the legality of this. My own suspicion is they need money to finish their infrastructure for homes already sold, hence these expensive lots and homes on the table with their own driveway to the homes at the expense of our community. This idea was because of the last homeowner on video stating the lack of infrastructure on her lot.
However, I know from years ago the “deal” for them was to avoid any access into the Quigley development from Quigley Road. It was to be only access for fire and emergency and that is in place at the beginning of the road. I participated with a local group to present facts and opposition to the plans. The lots and homes beyond the pond is almost the exact same proposal that was denied and strongly opposed by the citizens of Hailey in the late 2000’s.
I am wondering if the developer thinks something has changed. Wildlife corridors have not changed, water issues have not changed. Neither has the importance of citizens’ right to have public hearings. It was interesting to me that not one person in attendance in March was “for” the proposal.
Please do not allow a mediation and please vote against this proposal. See the letter about Boise and Hull Gulch to have history repeat itself, this time in a positive way.
Thank you so much for your service
Cathie M Royston -
(This comment was also submitted directly to county commissioners)
Blaine County,
Quigley Canyon is a true Idaho gem; an irreplaceable island of natural peace that provides refuge to wildlife and the county`s largest population center. Its loss would be forever mourned. I do not support development in the canyon, would prefer to see it remain wild and advocate strongly for full public involvement in the application process. -
(This comment was also submitted directly to commisioners)
Dear Commissioners McCleary and Davis,
I support PUBLIC discussions of ALL development proposals for Quigley Canyon; No closed door mediation. The canyon provides outdoor recreation year around for valley residents; it is a wildlife corridor; senior water rights should not be transferred to the proposed subdivision; Quigley Road should be maintained where and as it is.
It was so disappointing to hear about the additional development in the canyon. As with many others, it was my impression that Quigley Farms was to be the extent of development in the canyon. It was a compromise I felt I could live with. I strongly oppose further development beyond the Farms.
This canyon is the gem of our south valley. Development would do irreparable harm to wildlife habitat, water resources, and year-around recreation. This winter I saw over 30 walkers and about 17 dogs in less than an hour of walking out the canyon (during the work week and in the early afternoon). It is a beautiful and peaceful place just to Be.
Many of us moved here because of the proximity to the natural environment, wildlife and perhaps a less pretentious lifestyle. The struggle to hold on to those qualities in the face of development is painful.
If we must come to some kind of compromise:
Keep the Quigley Road as it is. Motorized traffic moves slower on the gravel and will generally slow down even more if walkers signal them to do so. It is a destination that dog owners can let their pets off leash. There are walkers, runners, bikers and pets on the road; that makes a 5 to 6 foot walking path very crowded.
No hillside development; concentrate development to the valley floor and towards the mouth of the canyon with smaller lots and affordable housing options. That would allow greater contiguous open space for wildlife and recreation.
Access to any development should be through Quigley Farms, not Quigley Road.
Thank you for your time and service to our community.
Carol Monteverde
-
(This comment was also submitted directly to county commissioners)
I’m writing you to request that you stand with Hailey residents and the P&Z in denying mediation for Quigley Ranch. As a resident of Hailey living on Eureka Dr. I’ve watched the development and impact of Sunbeam and Quigley Farms. I’ve heard my neighbors and community members opposing further development that does not meet the B-3 county comprehensive master plan to develop smaller homes and dwelling units. I’ve also watched P&Z stand with the community to deny approval for Quigley Ranch in a 5-1 vote.
The impacts to recreation, wildlife habitat and winter range, avalanche and fire danger, water rights, increased traffic are all clear. If Quigley Ranch is allowed into mediation and moves forward this will irreparably damage our community. It will not be a legacy I want to see for the community or for the future of my daughter growing up in Hailey. We recreate with our neighbors and dogs out Quigley Canyon 3 days or more a week winter and summer. As a member of the community I ask you to not allow the developers to remove the community from this decision and turn private profit over the interest of the public, wildlife, and land.
Thanks,
Daniel Ryan
431 Eureka Dr. -
(This comment was also submitted directly to county commissioners)
I oppose the mediation for Quigley development proposals and request that these meetings and procedures be kept open to the public. Since this is a decision that significantly affects Blaine County residents, we should be able to participate in the discussion and have visibility to the proceedings.
I also oppose the development of Quigley beyond the Quigley Farms area and on the hillsides of Quigley.
Quigley Canyon is a treasured resource for residents for recreation and is an important wildlife habitat.
The Nordic ski area is vital, since these are the only dedicated ski trails in Hailey. Skiers would have to drive north of Ketchum to access good trails without Quigley Nordic, and Hailey residents with jobs do not have the time to drive an hour round trip every day for skiing. The development would significantly impact the quality of the skiing in a negative way. The peace and enjoyment of the area would be disrupted with more housing development.
The space is also crucial for wildlife, and the development will have a negative impact on elk, deer, and antelope.
Hillside building would detract from the natural beauty of the area that residents enjoy and treasure, as well as disrupting the wildlife areas and endangering wildlife.
There are other problems including water availability and increased traffic that could be dangerous for recreators.
Quigley is a community treasure, not a place to be usurped by wealthy developers and a handful of homeowners. Please deny additional development in Quigley Canyon and preserve the treasured space for us now and for the future of this valley.
-
Following is the letter I sent to our Council Women. Thanks so very much to the organizers of Save Quigley Canyon,
Dear Commissioners Muffy and Angenie,
I ask that you deny the request from the developer to go into private mediation and further more to deny this development that would encroach on the foothills and on Hailey’s recreation and wildlife winter habitat.
Decades ago a Boise council woman, Anne Hauswrath, was responsible for withstanding extreme pressure to develop Hulls Gulch; a similar open space to Quigley Canyon. Hulls Gulch was beloved by the little neighborhood called the north end of Boise. Anne Hauswarth led the fight to preserve Hulls Gulch from development decades ago and it is now the backbone of the Ridges to Rivers trail system in Boise. Hulls Gulch DEFINES the QUALITY OF LIFE in the northend of Boise by giving residents a natural, close by place to exercise and socialize, hiking, walking biking and observing wildlife. It has preserved winter range for mule deer and famously provided nesting habitat for great horned owls as well as habitat for many other species. I see that as council women you have shown the leadership and frankly the guts to stand up for what you know is both lawful and for what meets the intentions of the laws and so importantly…what will direct this community toward being a healthy, exceptional place to live with our natural landscapes integrated into our town and residences.
I believe that you will stand up to fight and prevent the ruination of Quigley Canyon beyond Quigley Farms – if you are unable to accomplish this for us the domino effect will follow…and the nature of our town will change, our ability to meet one another and exercise and be intimately aware of wildlife and to preserve wildlife will be irretrievably diminished..Hailey will move in a different direction.
I have already testified at two hearings regarding this project and I, as well as the majority of citizens speaking at the hearings, gave suggestions how to AVOID paving Quigley Rd, how to maintain the Mountain Overlay boundries, and how to make the exit thru Quigley Farms but the developer is not responding to this communities concerns or to our ordinances OR TO THE intention of these ordinances
PLEASE deny Quigley Ranch and deny changing the Mountain Overlay and stop this entirely!!!
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO GO TO MEDIATION.
You have a back up, because the P & Z – DENIED approval of the project!
I hope that the seriousness of all the wording in points 1-6, described below, should be reviewed and echoed in your responses for denial.
Please find a way to DENY.Sincerely, Renee Catherin
221 S 5th Ave, Hailey, ID
——————————————————————————
“concern that as designed with access off of Quigley Road
rather than through Quigley Farm Subdivision that 24 lots will incur more traffic with deliveries etc. reducing safety for recreators.” Those safety concerns “stem from the conflict of the amount of recreators and the proposed future nine access points (6 driveways from lots 1-6 and 3 spur roads from the 3 development “pods”) onto Quigley Road and the associated traffic.”
“The Commission found that the Cul-de-sacs are proposed as permanent and therefore do not comply with standards.”
“The Planning and Zoning Commission advocated for one larger contiguous open space to minimize wildlife/residential conflict and provide for a larger tract of unencumbered habitat instead of spaces between building envelopes and avalanche areas.”
The application did not meet Desired Outcome B-3 from the County’s Comprehensive Master Plan, which is to “Facilitate the development of smaller houses, dwelling units, and lots through zoning and other tools.” The Commission found this comprehensive plan goal was not met since a design can provide for smaller lots.
The application did not meet Desired Outcome A-4 from the County’s Comprehensive Master Plan, which is to “Continue to protect hillside, avalanche-prone, riparian and other sensitive or hazard areas from housing development. Implementation of firewise practices should be augmented in existing lots near wildfire-prone areas and defensible spaces should be established in new subdivisions. The Commission found that this comprehensive plan standard was not met due to the impacts on wildlife and existing hillside with lots 1-6.
The application did not meet the design standard of preserving natural features: “The commission found that proposed lots 1-6 were not found to be practicable and appropriate.”
ReplyApril 2, 2023
-
(This comment was also submitted directly to county commissioners)
Commissioner,
I hope this email finds you well.
I am writing to you to urge you to oppose further development in Quigley Canyon. The community of Blaine County strongly opposes further development, as has been communicated time and time again. My family and I live on Quigley Road. I cannot even begin to imagine the impact this development would have on our lives. It would drastically change the lives of my four young children, who spend countless hours outside of our home on foot, bicycles, scooters, etc. To have access to such an incredible recreation area is exactly why we chose to buy our home and raise our children here.
Please follow suit with what the P&Z committee already has voted (5-1) in denying approval of this absurd project.
I do not know you but I do know that you chose to live in this area for a reason and I’m guessing it’s similar to my own.
Please preserve this amazing resource for generations to come.
-
(this comment was also submitted directly to public officials)
Dear Commissioners Muffy and Angenie,
We are so sorry that you, – as our elected officials, have been put in a position to being, essentially threatened by a Developer.
This is horrible for you to have to stand up to fight and prevent the ruination of Quigley Canyon beyond Quigley Farms – but that is exactly what most of the public of Blaine County hope you can do.
Ken and I have written several common sense letters to you regarding this project with suggestions. These suggestions we made, apparently, are NOT intended to be met by these developers, lawyers, and business people. – We gave suggestions how to AVOID paving Quigley Rd, and still have their 24 lots – WITHOUT changing the Mountain Overlay boundries, and how to make the exit thru Quigley Farms. But…SO, there is no other option, we need you to find a way – to stand up with your votes – to deny Quigley Ranch and deny changing the Mountain Overlay and stop this entirely!!!
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO GO TO MEDIATION.
You have a back up, because the P & Z – DENIED approval of the project!
We hope that the seriousness of all the wording in points 1-6, described below, should be reviewed and echoed in your responses for denial.Please find a way to DENY,
Sincerely, Ginna and Ken Lagergren,PE
215 E Myrtle St, Hailey, ID
——————————————————————————
“concern that as designed with access off of Quigley Road
rather than through Quigley Farm Subdivision that 24 lots will incur more traffic with deliveries etc. reducing safety for recreators.” Those safety concerns “stem from the conflict of the amount of recreators and the proposed future nine access points (6 driveways from lots 1-6 and 3 spur roads from the 3 development “pods”) onto Quigley Road and the associated traffic.”
“The Commission found that the Cul-de-sacs are proposed as permanent and therefore do not comply with standards.”
“The Planning and Zoning Commission advocated for one larger contiguous open space to minimize wildlife/residential conflict and provide for a larger tract of unencumbered habitat instead of spaces between building envelopes and avalanche areas.”
The application did not meet Desired Outcome B-3 from the County’s Comprehensive Master Plan, which is to “Facilitate the development of smaller houses, dwelling units, and lots through zoning and other tools.” The Commission found this comprehensive plan goal was not met since a design can provide for smaller lots.
The application did not meet Desired Outcome A-4 from the County’s Comprehensive Master Plan, which is to “Continue to protect hillside, avalanche-prone, riparian and other sensitive or hazard areas from housing development. Implementation of firewise practices should be augmented in existing lots near wildfire-prone areas and defensible spaces should be established in new subdivisions. The Commission found that this comprehensive plan standard was not met due to the impacts on wildlife and existing hillside with lots 1-6.
The application did not meet the design standard of preserving natural features: “The commission found that proposed lots 1-6 were not found to be practicable and appropriate.” -
I have lived in Hailey on Eureka dr for 34 years & it’s simply appalling that this is even a debate! You as our commissioners need to listen to the people of this part of the valley who recreate in Quigley Canyon daily & NOT RICH DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE READY STOLEN A LOT FROM US & NOT REALLY LIVED UP THEIR PROMISES OF GIVING BACK! MY VOTE IS A “HARD NO”!
IF YOU BUILD IT?
THERE WILL BE ISSUES THAT YOU NEVER EVEN THOUGHT OF!
SAVE Quigley from this S-show! There should not be ANY NEGOTIATIONS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS IN THIS MATTER, PERIOD, FULL STOP!-
Amen, Brother!
-
-
(This comment was also submitted directly to the commisioners)
The purpose of the following is to provide comments on the request made by legal counsel for TVIV Quigley, LLC, at the March 1, 2023 public hearing, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6510, that the decision-making process on its two pending land use applications be suspended to allow it to engage in mediation with the Commission with respect to the two applications. It is my understanding that the written request does not provide any grounds for, or any reasoning why mediation at this point would be helpful to the decision-making process, or any possible steps to take in such a mediation process. As explained below, while mediation can be an effective means of resolving certain disputes, including those involving final decisions on land use applications, mediation at the present stage of the decision-making process concerning the two pending applications would not be appropriate. As a result, the request to initiate mediation should be denied.
As a preliminary matter, although Idaho Code Section 67-6510 provides the applicant, the decision-maker(s,) and interested persons the opportunity to request mediation at any stage of a land use application process, there is no mandate in the statute that such a request be granted. In addition, the statute imposes no specific procedures in the event a request to initiate mediation is granted. As applied to the present situation, that means that you, the appropriate decision-makers at this very late stage of the process of considering the two TVIV Quigley applications, have the discretion to deny the request. Or, if you were to grant it, you have the discretion to prescribe the specific steps in the mediation process you deem appropriate. In essence, as the elected Blaine County Commissioners, you have the authority to take whatever actions you believe will best advance informed decision-making, fairness to all participants, and the public interest in all matters, not just the present.
With that in mind, especially given the very late stage of the decision-making process on the two applications, the applicant’s mediation request is ill-timed. The Blaine County Planning Commission has held several public hearings on the applications at which the applicant and its representatives have promoted the applications and discussed them in detail, several hundred comments have been submitted by members of the public (almost all opposing the applications), and the Planning Commission has issued two separate decisions, recommending approval of the rezone application and disapproval of the subdivision/simple PUD application. The latter decision, over 35 pages long, provides several specific findings and reasons for its recommended disapproval. As a result, the decision-making process is close to its very end. All that remains at this point is for you, the County Commissioners, to consider the complete record before you and, when you deem it appropriate, issue your decisions on the two applications. There is no good reason to interrupt that process at this very late stage. After the decisions are issued, and before any appeal might be filed, if there are parties that might wish to pursue a mediation course of action pursuant to Section 67-6510 prior to an appeal, it would make sense to consider a request for mediation. But not now.
Another question to ask about the applicant’s mediation request is whether it would be helpful to your decision-making process. As the ultimate, objective decision-making entity on each application, you should have the benefit of as much information as possible to be as fully informed as possible. However, since the applicant and its legal counsel and consultants are experienced professionals and they have availed themselves of the several opportunities in the current process to explain and promote the two applications, it is hard to conceive of how there could still be information they have neglected to previously provide that, if now provided in mediation, would make your decision-making process even more fully-informed. If for some reason, there is such information, it would make more sense for them to request that there be another open public hearing held for them to provide that information to you, as well as the concerned public. That would be a much more transparent way of providing that information than a mediation process which, to be clear, is a negotiation process. And, along those lines, it is hard to understand how a negotiation process involving the Commission in some role would promote a more objective, fully-informed, fair decision-making process than what has transpired so far.
Finally, it is important to consider whether suspending the decision-making process on the two applications at this point, and shifting to some form of mediation/negotiation would benefit the citizens of Blaine County. It is plain that providing the applicant another bite at the apple, so-to-speak, through a mediation/negotiation process that did not allow full participation by these citizens would not. With respect to any land use application, the public interest is benefited by an open, transparent, public process in which all citizens may participate in the decision-making process. And, it is only fair so long as that participatory role includes the opportunity to attend properly-noticed public meetings in which the applicant has a full opportunity to explain its application and the citizens have a full opportunity to learn as much as possible about the application, including through questioning the applicant, and also making their opinions known to the decision-maker. That is what has occurred so far with respect to the two TVIV Quigley applications. To suddenly turn away from that process to a new, unnecessary one in which the applicant is provided the opportunity to essentially negotiate things under the auspices of mediation would very definitely not be fair to and would not benefit the citizens of Blaine County.
-
Muffy and Angie, if you do nothing else you really need to stop these developers from going forward !!!!!! It’s within your power. We have already submitted our letter of discontent and just want to reiterate that Quigley is the last “open space” near our community that we can recreate with our dogs and hiking. A healthy outlet year round. Sure beats the gym by a mile. It is also as everyone knows a winter haven for our beloved migratory animals, the elk and the deer. It has been wonderful this winter as we look up onto the hillside to know the deer and elk have a safe area to hang out during these dreaded winter months.
Why do these people from Texas have to come into our small little neighborly community and ruin it for them/us ? This is our home, why do they get to ruin it for just a few.? Let them stay in TX or go somewheres else.
We pray to God everyday that he will listen to our prayers and we can win this one!!! There have been not very many battles on this front that we have won. Let this be the one 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 Please !!!! -
If development to the outer reaches of Quigley Canyon was a good idea, it would have happened years ago. The “we need this golf course” idea and associated developments were thrown out fifteen, maybe twenty years ago. Proposed development out Quigley was a bad idea then and an even worse proposal now. The people of Hailey have written letters, attended hearings and made their voices clear. No, no,no! Fish and Game said no! P and Z said no! I oppose the sleazy notion of mediation in private. The public needs to be included in any proposal out the canyon. Take a walk down the roads of Sunbeam Subdivision this winter. Because of all the snow and paved roads it’s a good place to walk. Unfortunately the elk seem terrified by my presence so close to where they are hovering on the bare ground of new house excavations. The winter range is already encroached upon on the now edge of Hailey at Sunbeam. It’s unacceptable to further take over the winter wildlife range. That road should not be paved to accommodate more traffic and development. The development needs to stop at Quigley Farms. Thanks for listening.
-
We strongly oppose the proposed development for the north side of Quigley Canyon road. There is a massive amount of new construction going on right now and the questions and concerns surrounding proper infrastructure to sustain them remain unclear.
Recently, temporary closure signs have been posted at the trail head to Buttercup in order to protect our deer and other wildlife populations so that they may exist without stress during the harshness of our winter conditions. We as trail users, respect these postings. But the developers clearly do not. Demolishing their habitat for the purpose of building these homes takes away that landscape to them PERMANTLY. Where does it stop? The city and county should have the right to say “no, you can’t build there.”
If you actually care about this valley, and the local people that utilize all these trails, as well as the look and feel of our beautiful hillsides then you will not approve this development!
If you choose to support this then rest assured, we will not be supporting you with our vote going forward.
Greg & Val Thomson
-
In this area we are people who pride themselves on quality of connection not material possessions or financial gain. To move forward with this is to move in a direction that goes against the communities priorities and moral compass. This is not something that supports our community but takes away from it. Yes, change happens and places grow but please don’t take away this community resource. Our small community consists of people who take their kids hiking, dogs running, and meet their closest friends for walks in nature. Quigley is the easiest access for those who live in Hailey to be surrounded by beautiful scenery and the sunniest place to be in the winter. This will be a huge loss to our community if it is taken away by all who enjoy it.
-
I grew up recreating along the beautiful gravel road of Quigley Canyon. As a youngster, I explored nature with my friends, and as an adult, I exercised in the fresh air and was peacefully awed by the scenic vistas the area offered while I jogged. Quigley Canyon has incredible value, that is clear. However, selfish parties want to turn it into a “ranch” of homes for a privileged few. This doesn’t dovetail with the interests or needs of the community whatsoever. It is an attempt at destructively developing what makes our landscape meaningful. This “ranch” benefits a few at the detriment of many. Thank you for listening to my feedback, and thank you for supporting the Save Quigley initiative.
Leave a Reply