In September of 2022, Blaine County Planning and Zoning voted 5 to 1 that commissioners deny the Quigley Ranch development application.

According to a P&Z staff memo, the Commission found that many of the street and lot standards were not met in the Quigley application. Below are just a few, but hardly all, of the issues P&Z had with the design.

1. A “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.”
2. “The Commission found that the Cul-de-sacs are proposed as permanent and therefore do not comply with standards.”
3. “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.”
4. 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.
5. 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.
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.”

On Novmeber 29, 2022, the Quigley Ranch developers presented their application before county commissioners. In addition to seeking approval to subdivide their parcel into 24 lots, they also requested an amendment to the mountain overlay district, which prevents development along hillsides, according to a pre-determined boundary line.

Given the controversy of and increased public attention surrounding the proposal, commisioners decided to delay a decision and continue discussion.

On March 1, 2023, during the follow-up hearing before county commisioners, the developer made a formal request for mediation, which would mean closed door negotiations without public input. After some deliberations internally, Commissioners Davis and McCleary agreed to mediation. However, they announced that “no decision will be reached” during the mediation process and that notes from what transpires during the talks will become public record.

In addition, they stated “Concerns regarding the Application will be discussed, but there will be no promises given or discussions made as to whether the application will be approved or denied.  Any material changes (if any changes are made) to the Application will be considered by way of revisions to the application, which will then be considered by the full Board in the public hearing process.  If no changes are made, then the Application will return to the Board “as is” for deliberations in a public hearing.” Currently no date has been set for the mediation sessions

We have also confirmed that any changes to the development proposal would need to be approved by the Wood River Land Trust, which holds an easement on the property. While the WRLT approved the PUD design that we’re currently opposing, their approval of an updated design is not certain.

Following mediation, the county released the following statement , which overall holds positive news for the preservation of Quigley Canyon. Nevertheless, we have no indication that the commissioners intend to deny the application and it remains crucial that as many citizens as possible reach out to them with their concerns. The consequences of Quigley Ranch would be extensive and long-term. I encourage readers of this blog to familiarize themselves with the proposal. While the construction of Quigley Ranch would not mean an end to BLM access or nordic skiing, it would dramatically change the character of both treasured canyon attributes, along with significant impacts to other areas, such as water, wildlife, traffic, and safety.

It’s in the developer’s interest for public attention to this whole process to subside. We’re not going to let that happen. Continue to reach out to Commissioners Davis and McCleary. Any amount of contact in which you voice your opposition to Quigley Ranch is valuable. Read through the many comments (scroll to the bottom), check out the latest updates, and make your voice heard!