Email sent November 12, 2024
On Wednesday, November 13, the Blaine County Commissioners will hold a public hearing to reconsider the 3-0 denial of the Quigley Ranch PUD application. As expected, the Applicant asked for a “reconsideration” following the Board’s decision in July. While this special October reconsideration hearing, which was not open for public comment, should have related strictly to the existing record (what had previously been decided upon), the Applicant submitted a redesign of their subdivision at the eleventh hour. The impropriety of this action and its influence on the Board’s response to grant a reconsideration is obvious. But what’s done is done.
At this point, we have another hearing and, in our opinion, a new application. I’ve linked a letter to the Commissioners by Jim Karkut that summarizes how the County should proceed, if they choose to follow Idaho code. I’m not going to dive into the details, as Jim’s outline is excellent. What I am going to try and quickly highlight/counter are incorrect statements included in the recent wave of public comments and how I feel the Board should interpret and respond to the changes in this new application.
“We value the recreational access on private land and appreciate that this plan preserves over 1,200 acres of open space.” It’s been made explicitly clear during this process that the Quigley Farms Conservation Easement, those 1,200 acres, was a condition for Hailey’s annexation of Quigley Farms. The approval of this application does not fulfill or negate the easement in any way. The clause relating to “Future Building Envelopes” in the easement does allow for 24 lots, should the County approve them.
“The potential alternative plans do not preserve this great community asset.” Recreational access in Quigley Canyon, namely for nordic skiing and use of the perimeter trail, is managed via Conditional Use Permits by the BCRD. The details of this arrangement can be found in both the Conservation Easement and the Quigley Management Plan (see attached), both of which the Landowner/Applicant agreed to in 2017/18. Before the reconsideration hearing, the BCRD and the Land Trust issued a “Notice of Intervention,: stating that the two organizations have real property rights contingent to the parcels being discussed. Reading between the lines, they intend to defend those rights, including recreational access. Should the Landowner decide to sell the property, neither the Quigley Plan or the Conservation Easement are voided.
“The Comprehensive Plan designates this acreage as appropriate for residential development.” I’ve attached two maps. One is of the updated Quigley Ranch design and the other is of areas designated in BC’s Comprehensive Plan as inappropriate for development. Quigley Farms falls outside of the highlighted area. Great job! Quigley Ranch, as proposed, does not. Half of the subdivision is undeniably inside what the Comp Plan has carved out as “not appropriate for development.” Further consolidation would vastly improve this application and better align with the Comprehensive Plan.
How the Board responds to the new application is going to be interesting. After hardly budging for two years, the Applicant submitted alterations in the face of a permanent denial. They had had the roadmap for approval since the P&Z Commission issued their recommendation for denial in 2021, but it took the Commissioner’s denial for the Applicant to take the P&Z requests seriously. This new application is different, with some noticeable improvements. But does it now meet all of the failed standards? I’m not going to open that can of worms right now, as I anticipate at least one more hearing.
If you feel inclined, go ahead and send the Board an email. However, the number of comments for or against this project should not determine its fate. For many, what’s happening out Quigley is fantastic. For others, it’s a tragedy. As always, there is a middle path and hopefully all parties are able to recognize that potential. Simply put, this is an ongoing and public process by which a Landowner needs to adhere to County regulations before receiving approval for their project.
Email sent September 18, 2024
As you know, at the end of July, the Blaine County Commissioners denied the Quigley Ranch application with a 3-0 vote. I’ve attached the Board’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, published a few weeks ago. You can also view that document here.
Perhaps, like me, you’ve heard the arcane opinion that the Commissioners had no legal right to reject the Quigley Ranch subdivision. The argument is that the grounds for their decision were arbitrary and capricious, amounting to an “unlawful regulatory taking.” The Quigley development team, of course, feels this way, which is why they filed a reconsideration request last week. According to the Land Use Department, there will be a hearing for that appeal set in October.
More valley citizens, however, hold a different perspective, one that applauds the Commissioner’s review and enforcement of the County’s regulatory corpus, including their interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to increasingly scarce open space within Blaine’s jurisdiction.
The Board performed, to the chagrin of the Applicant’s counsel, an extensive and rigorous analysis of the application over the course of 18 months. During final deliberations, the Commissioners went through each and every regulatory criteria to determine if all the appropriate standards had been met. A quick count from the report (the application’s failures are underlined) reveals 14 unmet standards across Title 8 (Comprehensive Plan), Title 9 (Zoning Regulations), and Title 10 (Subdivision Regulations). The Quigley Ranch proposal didn’t fail because of minor technicalities; the application, as Save Quigley hammered repeatedly, was denied because it didn’t meet an enormous amount of obvious and important regulatory criteria. The mountain of public comments helped crystallize many of these flaws.
Notably, water use, the most controversial topic of this entire Quigley debate, was not a reason for the denial. When the IDWR issued the groundwater moratorium in June, the Applicant had no choice but to abandon their proposal for 24 individual wells and instead elected to construct a community water system. While local water experts decried the application’s lack of details regarding that system, the Commissioners found the plan sufficient and the water supply standard met. Given that our entire basin is overallocated, water use for any new development should be under extreme scrutiny, but don’t let this point get confused: Quigley wasn’t denied due to water concerns.
According to the Owner’s Counsel of America, regulatory takings “can occur when the government regulation limits the uses of private property to such a degree that the regulation effectively deprives the property owner of all economically reasonable use or value of property, even though the regulation does not formally divest the owner of title or possession.” When considering whether or not Blaine County has deprived the Applicant of the reasonable use or value of Quigley Canyon, it’s essential to go back and review the P&Z decision from 2022. That report reads like a broken record: access your subdivision through your adjacent property, Quigley Farms, and consolidate the lots closer to the city boundary. They also cited the unnecessary use of cul-de-sacs, which the County discourages. For over two years, the Applicant tried to counter the P&Z recommendation for denial by pointing to the removal of the 6 hillside lots and their sustainability bonafides as sufficient for approval. Bullishly, they forged ahead with sales of the lots and infrastructure development in Quigley Farms, making any access changes increasingly difficult (for them). A genuine redesign could have also happened, with the lots consolidated at the mouth of the canyon for reduced wildlife impacts.
In other words, the Applicant was given ample time and measures to amend their application for County approval. If anything, they deprived themselves of a proposal the Board could accept, and the associated economic value of the resulting subdivision. If this denial represents an “unlawful regulatory taking” then the regulations and overlay districts pursuant to property in Blaine County no longer matter, and developers with enough resources can carve up our canyons. Thankfully, in this specific case, that reality was very publicly repelled.
The reconsideration of the denial will be interesting. I don’t believe the Commissioners will renege on the Board’s decision, especially given the 3-0 vote. However, the threat of development in Quigley Canyon will not be settled until the development rights in the Quigley Conservation Easement are extinguished (see attached, paragraph 4.2.6). How this happens is a big question. At the moment, the value of those rights is probably at its nadir, given the Board’s denial of the recent application. The Applicant could always submit a new subdivision proposal that better adheres to the Board’s findings, or they could sell the property for the next owner to take a shot at further development.
Whatever the Quigley team decides to do, paragraph 13 of easement has the following assurance: “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.” So until the Property Owner receives some kind of compensation, whether it’s for platted lots in a subdivision, the entire undeveloped property, or the aforementioned development rights (which could then be extinguished), it’ll be an open space stalemate.
Thank you to the better minds working on keeping Quigley Canyon, and all that it symbolizes, intact for generations to come.
Email sent July 30, 2024
After two separate deliberations and over six hours of discussion, the Blaine County Commissioners ultimately voted to deny the Quigley Ranch subdivision application! The vote was 3-0, with each of the Commissioners citing a variety of issues with the proposal. Once the County releases their summary of the Board’s findings, I’ll send a longer email.
As you know, this application has been in the works since 2022. There were dozens of hearings and over 600 public comments submitted. The incredible amount of public scrutiny and analysis led to important independent reviews of the wildlife impacts and the water supply related to further development in Quigley Canyon. We’re extremely pleased with this decision and want to encourage everyone to once more reach out to the Commissioners. Thank them for considering the big and the small elements of the Quigley Ranch proposal.
This is a win for open space, science-based ecological management, the Quigley aquifer (and the Big Wood, by extension), the old dirt road, and public safety. The Commissioners cited many of these as their reasons for denial and it’s worth acknowledging their extensive efforts.
Stay tuned for more updates and the inevitable response by the developer’s team.
Email sent July 24, 2024
The County Commissioners began deliberations yesterday for consideration of the Quigley Ranch application.
However, about 2 hours into the discussion, one of the commissioners had to suddenly leave and the remaining deliberations have been rescheduled for Monday, 7/29, at 1:30pm. At that point, it was unclear where the Commissioners stood on a number of standards. Once a decision has been made, I’ll provide an update on the vote, the Board’s rationale, and our response.
While I’ll refrain from providing much commentary, as deliberations are ongoing and public comment remains closed, I do want to highlight Design Standards 10-5-3 (A. Preservation of Natural Features) and (R. Wildlife). The P&Z Commission found that the Quigley Ranch application failed to meet both criteria, which deal with the preservation of critical habitat and protection of wildlife. Many parties continue to suggest that the Quigley complex (Farms, Ranch, and the associated trails that the developer collaborated on) won’t affect wildlife, or that there’s already so much recreation in Quigley that the new construction is negligible. I’ve also heard the argument that trails close to town will have fewer wildlife impacts than those in the alpine or more remote areas.
Here are links to the independent report on wildlife impacts in Quigley Canyon, commissioned by the Board in 2023, a map of the two, new proposed trails – both of which were developed in collaboration with the Quigley Ranch and Quigley Farms developer – and a TedTalk by Boise State professor, Jesse Barber. What’s been proposed for Quigley Canyon is clearly contrary to wildlife protection standards in Blaine and beyond. Any argument otherwise is misunderstanding of critical habitat and the tendencies of animals.
If the Board and the public can’t see the forest for the trees, we’re going to continue this slide towards sprawl and loss. Trails are the lifeblood of this community, and the BLM’s new system in Quigley Canyon is happening. It will be cool and fun and push away elk, deer, pronghorn, chukar, etc. by default. So let’s please remember this debate in 10 years, when the next system is proposed, and the next, and the next…
Email sent July 14, 2024
Dear Commissioners Davis, McCleary and Mollineaux,
Thank you, as always, for taking the time required to review and analyze the Quigley Ranch application. The citizens of Blaine County have been following this proposal carefully and will remember your decision for years to come.
Following the release this week of IDWR’s momentous groundwater moratorium, water use in Quigley Canyon cannot be papered over or assigned to HOA management. The Department has told us there is no excess water for allocation in the Big Wood basin, your expert concluded there are insufficient flows in the Quigley aquifer to support the proposed uses, and the State Director is now asserting the right to suspend appropriation of exempt domestic uses where water is unavailable. Given that Blaine County Code for subdivision applications, §10-5-4, reads, “Domestic water shall be available in sufficient quantity to meet foreseeable and existing demands for domestic and fire suppression uses,” denial of this application is the only option.
Moreover, despite the Water Supply standard being legitimate grounds for denial, it is critical that the Board acknowledge and consider all of this application’s failed standards. According to Blaine County Code, “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.”
The P&Z Commission found the following standards unmet and it is the Board’s responsibility to address each one and justify a positive finding, if a Commissioner should deem it so.
- 10-5-2 Threshold Standards (B. Comprehensive Plan)
- 10-5-3 Design Standards (A. Preservation of Natural Features)
- 10-5-3 Design Standards (B. Lot Requirements)
- 10-5-3 Design Standards (C. Blocks)
- 10-5-3 Design Standards (M. Design Of Subdivisions Within Or Adjacent To Lands Zoned A-20, A-40, R-10 Or RR-40)
- 10-5-3 Design Standards (N. Street Improvements)
- 10-5-3 Design Standards (R. Wildlife)
- 10-5-4 Infrastructure Improvements Standards (B. Water)
- 10-6-2 Purpose (B. Open Space and Recreation Areas)
- 10-6-2 Purpose (C. Efficient Use of Land)
- 10-6-2 Purpose (F. Preservation of Character)
- 10-6-7 Simple Planned Unit Development (B. Open Space And Recreation Areas & C. Efficient Use Of Land)
Of course water is a critical piece, but the Quigley Ranch application contains 12 unmet standards. The popular opinion is denial; the scientific opinion is denial; the legal opinion is denial. Cumulatively, the proposed subdivision is beyond any hope of approval, so, for the future of Blaine County, please assert your authority and deny.
Save Quigley
Email sent June 20, 2024
On June 12, the Blaine County Commissioners held a public hearing to discuss the pending Quigley Ranch application. Given that this was the 8th hearing on the proposed development, and that the Commissioners had many weeks to review the independent water and wildlife assessments, I was sincerely under the impression that we would get a final decision. This was not the case. Both experts were on zoom to present their findings and answer any questions. Naturally multiple staffers from the Land Use Department were also present. Nevertheless, the Board Chair, Commissioner Davis, was unable to get a satisfactory response to a single question: can Idaho’s domestic well exemption, which allows for an aggressive amount of water to be drawn daily (13,000 gallons), be legally enforced through plat notes and CC&Rs, or is the County ultimately bound by the state code? Land Use said the state had priority, while the applicant’s counsel argued that was wrong…
So, another hearing has been scheduled! It will be on June 25th at 1:30pm. Bang the drum and email the commissioners: pzcounter@co.blaine.id.us. I’ll post the unmet, and continually unaddressed standards, on the Save Quigley page if you need a template.
As you know, these emails have been a mixed bag of public service announcements, calls to action, and status updates. For this missive I’m going to break down what I saw/heard at the last hearing and what has transpired at the County since then (P&Z ruled on an issue directly related to Quigley Ranch the following evening). The Mountain Express article published today gives a thorough, and far more journalistic, overview.
On Water
Before the final water impasse, the independent hydrologist, Dr. Fairley, presented his findings, which echoed the applicant’s own analysis: the proposed in-home consumption and irrigation for the proposed subdivision shouldn’t be unsustainable for the Quigley aquifer, given that the recycled water plant (grey water from homes in Quigley Farms is supposed to supply irrigation water for homes in Quigley Ranch) would be providing for much of the irrigation needs. Dr. Fairley kept it interesting, however, by notably pointing out that if the recycled water plant failed the aquifer would not be able to sustain the proposed 6,500 gpd per well for very long. The Applicant had preemptively understood this threat to their application by suggesting that they would cut off irrigation, besides hose bibs, from the wells entirely. While this may appear to solve the problem, we continue to dance around the elephant in the room – why haven’t we seen any plans, drawings, etc. for the recycled water plant? How are two separate HOAS going to maintain such a plant? Jim Karkut, whose most recent comment regarding the water issues I’ve attached again, raises these concerns in greater detail.
This is where the County’s ability to enforce water regulations (or not) is crucial: if the recycled water plant, which is going to take another 12 fully-occupied homes in Quigley Farms before it can be operational, isn’t built, or faces a repair that leaves it inoperable for a lengthy period of time, the homeowners in Quigley Ranch will be forced to irrigate somehow. If it’s determined that the domestic well exemption can not be circumvented by the HOA, plat notes, etc., there’s little recourse for preventing the aquifer from getting overdrawn. Of course the Applicant stated that their homeowners will play by the rules and that a violation of the CC&Rs could be handled by the HOA. But that is a shortsighted take on what’s happening, specifically 24 individual wells are going to be drilled for lots that, once established, will not be encumbered by the Conservation Easement (see below for details). The possible draws from and uses of these wells need to be considered over the long term, especially since the water rights in Quigley Canyon are some of the oldest in the county. Do you think the 2nd or 3rd generation Quigley Ranch homeowner is going to let their very, very expensive landscaping die, or will they apply the domestic water exemption and begin pumping directly from the aquifer?
Frustratingly, at the beginning of the hearing, Rachel Martin, Blaine’s Land Use Co-Director, reported to the Board that she’d spoken to IDWR, who said that state law would supersede any type of County-specific enforcement. Instead of accepting her due diligence, they kowtowed to the Applicant’s counsel, who disagreed, even adding that he hadn’t heard of the IDWR employee Rachel referenced. Moreover, the Applicant’s request to be a part of the investigation into the well enforcement mechanisms was met by the Board with mild acceptance. Yes, the party being regulated wanted to be a part of the regulatory discussion. I hope that during the next hearing the Commissioners change the dynamic and meet the Applicant’s counsel with greater confidence.
I’ll add one more water anecdote from the hearing. At one point the applicant’s counsel complained that the Board was analyzing their subdivision, as far as water standards went, to a degree that he’d never seen before, implying that they were being needlessly excessive. Commissioner Davis responded by simply stating, matter of factly, that this was a very important matter and they wanted to make a responsible decision. Thank you, Muffy. Maybe from now on a new standard of analysis will emerge in Blaine County that prioritizes water and wildlife.
On Wildlife
The independent wildlife analysis was conducted by Jeff Klausman, an ecologist from the Teton area. In his presentation of findings, he recognized the difficult balance of protecting wildlife and recreating in their habitat. I’ve also attached his report because what he said at the public hearing needs to be amplified in this valley. Everyone loves to recreate outdoors, in some form or another. It’s why many of us live here. Yet our insatiable appetite for recreation can often cloud our judgement when it comes to the needs of big game, birds, and native vegetation.
Concerning the Quigley Ranch proposal, Klausman wrote, “Quigley Ranch would have significant impacts on wildlife. As planned the project would impact an already fragmented IDFG-mapped mule deer migration corridor at the western end of the property…. Although it would be contiguous with existing and ongoing development at the canyon mouth, Quigley Ranch would expand the overall development footprint near large intact public lands, increase habitat fragmentation, and potentially make these lands less functional as elk avoid them. This point has also been made by IDFG.” He called Quigley Ranch a direct impact. Importantly, Klausman also noted the significant threat of indirect impacts, one of which he defined as increased human presence (i.e. recreation). In his report, he states, “Current and proposed recreation infrastructure improvements [in Quigley Canyon] conflict with wildlife conservation and should be reconsidered to protect big game. This is less of a concern in summer, but recent trail expansion in this area and all over Blaine County threatens big game populations in every season.” After Klausman finished, the Commissioners asked pointed questions but overall I did not get the impression that the ecological perspective was being fully appreciated.
What the Commissioners must absolutely consider is that just one evening later the Blaine County P&Z commission recommended for approval a site alteration permit that would allow for the construction of new trails on the Applicant’s property (see attached maps). These trails will go up and down and all around the mouth of Quigley Canyon. The lone wanderer is soon to become hikers, wanders, and bikers. From the Applicant’s perspective, these “sustainable” trails will increase the property values of homes in both Quigley Farms and the proposed Quigley Ranch. What Klausman and other wildlife experts see, on the other hand, is a substantial rise of indirect impacts.
If the Commissioners vote to approve Quigley Ranch, Blaine County will have effectively welcomed both significant direct and indirect wildlife impacts out Quigley in one fell swoop. Or the Board could recognize that P&Z has already prioritized recreation over a massive subdivision – recommending approval for the indirect impacts (trails) while recommending denial for the direct one (subdivision). If you’ve forgotten – P&Z recommended denial for the Quigley Ranch application back in 2022. Responsible land use is about balance and I hope the Commissioners acknowledge that a sizable network of trails on the Applicant’s property was just green-lighted, meaning something else (*cough* Quigley Ranch) should probably be rejected.
On the Easement
The Applicant’s counsel has repeatedly stated that if Quigley Ranch isn’t approved a worst proposal is going to come along and that’s what we’ll get. Now, the Commissioners shouldn’t vote on this sort of hypothetical, but I do feel that it’s an angle worth exploring. The Easement is a huge deal and correctly interpreting its clauses is important. After reading and re-reading the Conservation Easement, I’m not convinced a developer “could do whatever they wanted with it,” as the Applicant’s counsel claimed. Below is the language from the Quigley Easement related to any future development proposals.
4.2.6 Future Building Envelopes.
Within approximately 73 acres of the Property located outside the boundaries of the City of Hailey (identified on Exhibit D), landowner can create up to 24 residential lots as small as possible and adjacent to one another to preserve the conservation values of the Property. The residential lots will be located in such a way as to minimize impacts on the conservation values, the shared boundaries between those lots and the Conservation Easement area will be minimized, and the areas of disturbance within those lots will not be located on areas with slopes higher than 25%. The applicable present zoning allows for lots sizes of at least five (5) acres. Landowner, with consent of the Land Trust, will work with Blaine county, through the applicable planning and zoning process, to allow for lots smaller than five (5) acres, and to establish the lots in a cluster development (not as defined in the Blaine County zoning code, but the lots must be contiguous to each other). Those residential lots will be surveyed and removed from the Conservation Easement, and will therefore no longer be subject to the provisions of the Conservation Easement. All future residential lots must be established at one time, and may not be relocated once established. In the event that Blaine County will not permit lots smaller than five (5) acres in this area, Landowner may establish lots that extend beyond the 73-acre area, but only the portions of those lots within the identified 73-acre area may be removed from the Conservation Easement. The portion of those lots located outside of the 73-acre identified area will remain encumbered by the Conservation Easement, and will be managed together with the remaining original Conservation Easement area as further defined in the Management Plan (Paragraph 4.4)
13. Perpetuation of Conservation Easement.
In addition, 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.
My takeaways:
1. Any new proposal needs the consent of the Land Trust. After what’s happened over the last two years with Quigley Ranch, I can’t imagine the WRLT would approve a project that is markedly worse than the current proposal?
2. Yes, the landowner may establish lots beyond the current 73, but only “In the event that BC will not permit lots smaller than 5 acres.” BC’s denial won’t be on those grounds so future lots, arguably, can’t be established outside of the designated 73-acre area.
3. Should the Landowner attempt to establish lots outside of the 73-acre area, those lots will be encumbered by the Conservation Easement (lots in the 73-acre area are not), which means that proposal can’t contradict the Easement’s stated “Conservation Values” (aka the preservation of water, wildlife, and open space resources).
4. This is more of a question – but is the Quigley Ranch proposal even consistent with the phrasing “the lots must be contiguous to each other”?
While I can’t imagine the Commissioners delaying a decision following next week’s hearing, it seems like anything is possible. The probability of approval is understandably high, and yet I do think the Board is thinking hard about many of the issues I’ve mentioned. This valley shouldn’t capitulate under the pressure of recreational hardliners, “Master Plans,” or the developer’s economics. If you have an opinion, let the Commissioners know – Quigley is for everyone.
Thanks for reading and I hope I imparted something new.
p.s. there was zero new discussion on access. Why the Board has ignored the P&Z’s recommendation to avoid altering Quigley Road and going through Farms is mind-boggling.
Email update sent June 3, 2024
The next (dare I say final?) public hearing for consideration of the Quigley Ranch application by the Blaine County Commissioners is set for Wednesday, June 12, at 5:30pm in the Old County Courthouse.
Since the Quigley Ranch materials were initially submitted in February of 2022, there have been 4 public hearings before the P&Z Commission and 7 public hearings before the County Commissioners. The citizens of Blaine County have submitted 523 comments, the vast majority in opposition to the proposed development. The Quigley Ranch application has required the P&Z Commission, the Board, and the public to ask hard questions about water, wildlife, infrastructure, recreation, land use and process. It’s clearly time for the Commissioners to come to a decision, and time for those opposed to further residential construction in Quigley Canyon to make our voices heard. I urge you to reach out to the Commissioners and ask them to deny this application. I’ve written a comment below that you are welcome to use. Send all comments to pzcounter@co.blaine.id.us.
Dear Commissioners Davis, McCleary, and Mollineaux,
Thank you for the ongoing hard work with regards to the Quigley Ranch application. Your decision to approve or deny the proposed subdivision will no doubt influence Blaine County’s oversight of potential development in our other beautiful canyons, such as nearby Democrat Gulch.
After so many hearings, it’s obvious that public opinion is against 24 large homes on 1-2 acre lots beyond the Farms subdivision. However, your decision cannot merely hinge on what’s popular. To approve or deny the Quigley Ranch application, you must consider whether all of the reasons for P&Z’s recommendation for denial have been addressed. Having reviewed the P&Z Commission’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (exhibit C-7), the independent wildlife and water reviews (exhibits C-12 & 13), as well as many of the highly-informed public comments, it is clear that the developer has failed to address a number of concerns and that the application must therefore be denied. I’d like to quote directly from the P&Z report, which offered succinct conclusions and recommendations:
In reference to standard 10-5-1 D. Lot Requirements, they wrote “Discussion leading to this negative recommendation was due to the development design not using the land efficiently… by condensing the development so it abuts the existing city limits allowing for a larger contiguous parcel of uninterrupted open space for preservation of character.” Even after the changes to the hillside lots, Quigley Ranch has not been condensed, the number of lots have not been reduced, and larger contiguous open space in the canyon has not been preserved.
In reference to standard 10-5-2 B. Comprehensive Plan, they wrote “The commission expressed concern that as designed with access off of Quigley Road rather than through Quigley Farm Subdivision that 24 lots will incur more traffic… It was expressed that if the applicant came back with a new design to have all 24 lots on the flat south of the existing Quigley Road and the access road to enter the subdivision was through Quigley Farms this comprehensive plan standard could be met.” Even after the changes to the hillside lots, Quigley Ranch has not proposed access via the developer’s own subdivision. Why would Blaine County approve an application that increases traffic for the general public in exchange for reduced traffic for the developer’s homeowners in Quigley Farms?
In reference to standard 10-5-3 M. Design of Subdivisions, they wrote “The commission found that the development impact did not meet this standard however could be minimized with an application design where the open spaces are consolidated to lessen the built-footprint further into the canyon, creating more contiguous open space for wildlife habitat scenic resources, and to preserve natural open areas.” Even after the changes to the hillside lots, more contiguous open space in the canyon has not been preserved.
In reference to 10-3-4 N. Street Improvements, they wrote, “This standard was… not found to be met in regards to safety as designed…. The Commission expressed their desire to see an application where the subdivision was accessed from the Quigley Farm Subdivision.” Again, the developer erred in the original design and has failed to remedy the problem.
In reference to standard 10-3-4 R. Wildlife, they wrote, “The Commission finds that the proposal as designed… does not comply with this standard. The Commission found that the developer could meet the standard if removed lots 1-6 from the north side of the road and consolidated lots to the mouth of the canyon.” While lots 1-6 were removed, the remainder of the lots have not been consolidated to the mouth of the canyon.
These are but a few of the failed standards listed in the P&Z recommendation for denial. The most recent staff update of that report states that while some of the regulations have since been met, many remain unfulfilled or up to the Board’s determination. There’s no question at this point that approval of Quigley Ranch will negatively impact wildlife, the old dirt road, and the views and character of an open canyon. Yet the question you are responsible for answering is, has this application satisfied the regulatory criteria? The answer is no, and this is grounds for denial.
Please vote to Save Quigley. Thank you.
Time is running to contact the Commissioners, so pass this information along and please reach out to them for a first, second, or even a third time! For those looking for more info about the proposed Quigley Ranch, the County page features the developer’s application and all of the exhibits, while www.savequigleycanyon.com highlights our opposition.
Email update sent April 22, 2024
In the fall of last year, the Blaine County Commissioners requested independent assessments of the wildlife and water impacts of the proposed Quigley Ranch development, both of which are now available. At that point in the process, the citizens of Blaine County had submitted over 518 comments, the vast majority being against the 24-luxury home project. Given the overwhelming public opposition to Quigley Ranch, the decision by the Board to wait for more information was a sound one. Despite what the Quigley team and its allies think, this massive, canyon-altering subdivision, which extends residential development and road infrastructure for a 1/2 mile beyond the present Quigley Farms, is not a foregone conclusion. Our voices are being heard – and this decision could set a very important precedent for future canyon development in Blaine County.
As many of you know, in 2022, the Blaine County P&Z voted 6-1 in recommending that the Board deny the application based on its failure to comply with a wide array of county development regulations and policies. Following that vote, there have been multiple, lengthy public hearings before the Board of Commissioners, and even a closed-door mediation session among the developer, Commissioner McCleary, and County Personnel. Apart from an early removal of six lots from the hillside to the valley floor, there have been no further design or access changes, leaving many of the failed zoning and subdivision criteria unmet. Moreover, the newly-released independent wildlife study concludes that the developer’s assertions regarding wildlife impacts are wrong: “Quigley Ranch will have significant impacts on wildlife and that impacts on big game will be from direct, indirect, and cumulative causes” (p.2).
In the next few weeks, the Board is likely going to meet, possibly for the final time, to discuss the review findings and issue a decision on the Quigley Ranch application. For the sake of valuable open space, wildlife, actual water (not what’s merely on “paper”) and a beloved dirt road, we need to contact the Commissioners immediately and implore them to act in the best interests of the community and deny the application. If you’ve already submitted a comment, write another and tell a friend! Every raised hand, every message, it matters. If you don’t know exactly what to say, you’re welcome to use the message below (see Home Page).
Once a hearing date and time are announced, I’ll send another update. I also encourage everyone to read the independent reviews for themselves. The wildlife review, in particular, says a great deal about the rural development trajectory of this valley and what we can do about it. Spread the word!
At the most recent hearing, held on November 8, 2023, the Commissioners requested independent, county-initiated peer reviews of the water and wildlife analyses provided by the applicant. Here’s the link to Idaho Mountain Express article covering the meeting.
All of the Commissioners agreed that the reviews were justified and would help to better inform their decision. The next hearing will be scheduled following the release of those reviews.
Email update sent November 3, 2023
The next public hearing for Quigley Ranch will be held in the Old County Courthouse on Wednesday, November 8 at 1:30pm. At this point, it’s unclear if the County Commissioners will make final deliberations after the hearing or if this saga will continue.
As those following the Quigley development know, there is an overwhelming amount of information on the current application that only continues to grow (plat changes, annexation agreement provisions to consider, public comments, etc.). I started the Save Quigley campaign because between December of 2022 and September of 2023, there was no public coverage of the development’s progression ahead, during, and after the closed-door mediation session in March of this year. I’m against what has been and is proposed for the remainder of Quigley Canyon, and these emails have obviously reflected that. At the same time, I encourage everyone to read through the application materials and draw their own conclusions.
When we see a major development proposal come before local leaders, it’s our responsibility to be critical, to assess the pros and cons, and to voice our concerns, as voters. Given the constant devastation of this planet, every unspoiled little canyon matters… What I saw with the Quigley Ranch application was a rare opportunity to leverage the protective cover of an easement and a recommendation for denial by P&Z for even greater protection of open space and natural resources. If the developer hadn’t signed the easement in 2017 preserving over 1200 acres this fight would be more tepid, as the perpetual protection of the larger canyon is paramount. If P&Z hadn’t recommended denial of the application last November, this fight wouldn’t have the legal basis it needs to be taken seriously. Given the unique context of this development, the commissioners actually have the ability to request significant improvements to Quigley Ranch’s proposal or deny it entirely – without risking loss of the canyon or losing in a slam-dunk lawsuit.
As I’ve written before, I genuinely respect the members of the Quigley leadership team and their vision for Farms. They didn’t have to open up nordic skiing or mountain biking along the rim, let alone sign the easement. However, open space is sacred, Quigley road is sacred. Blaine County can and should do better than 24 estate homes on 1 and 2-acre lots. In today’s Mountain Express , there’s a map featuring the most current proposal (pods) next to what the developer presented at the last hearing (straight line), in response to the Board’s request for an alternative access through Farms (I also attached it below). The latter is an alarmingly bad subdivision layout for Quigley, which was likely the developer’s intention. I suggest that we all keep in mind that access through Farms was central to P&Z’s recommendations in November of 2022. The developer has had over a year to redesign their subdivision to receive approval by the commissioners. This slap-dash drawing, which they contested only lacked creativity because of time constraints, is not what they or anyone else wants. It’s a subpar proposal that improves the look of the pods by contrast.
Finally, I’ve attached an extensive and compelling comment submitted by Dawn Cieslik of Hailey on 10/25. It’s well worth a read as we continue to press for the true preservation of Quigley Canyon. Public comment on new material is still open, so please forward this email on to others and contact the Commissioners at pzcounter@co.blaine.id.us!
Email update sent October 23, 2023
Join the growing number of community members opposing the Quigley Ranch application and attend the public hearing this Wednesday, October 25th at 5:30pm. Every voice matters!
If you can’t attend the hearing, please consider submitting a comment as soon as possible to pzcounter@co.blaine.id.us (see the template on the home page for an easy copy/paste).
The County Commissioners have so far received over 469 comments regarding the Quigley Ranch development proposal, making it very clear that a diverse body of citizens care about what’s being decided in our beloved canyon. In recent weeks, the Mountain Express has done a great job capturing the issue. Here’s the latest article.
While the developer and his team have made valuable contributions to the conservation of and recreation in Quigley canyon, Blaine County governance requires that very explicit subdivision, zoning, and comprehensive plan standards be met before an application is approved. Simply put, the Quigley Ranch application fails to meet the expected criteria and should be further improved or denied. The efforts to Save Quigley continue!
Email update sent September 30, 2023
Quick summary: There is a public hearing on the pending Quigley Ranch application this Monday Oct 2 at 5:30pm Old County Courthouse.
What you can do:
- Attend the hearing!
- Send the commissioners an email (pzcounter@co.blaine.id.us). Already sent one? Send another (see template below).
- Tell a neighbor!
If you’re not yet aware of what’s going or need to catch up on what’s happening, here are the Mountain Express articles:
As many of you know, the controversy surrounding Quigley Ranch is quite nuanced. The proposed subdivision is tied (conceptually) to the applicant’s overall plan for Quigley, which includes Quigley Farms and the Quigley conservation easement. Despite copious efforts by the applicant, the current design of Quigley Ranch is far from perfect. At this stage in the process, given P&Z’s recommendation for denial, the multiple unmet regulatory standards still in the application, and the widespread public opposition, the County needs to challenge the developer to sharpen their proposal (e.g. reducing the pods, platting fewer lots, creating an entrance through Quigley Farms rather than paving the road).
Despite what the applicant believes, Quigley Ranch, as it’s currently proposed, is not the best possible outcome for Quigley Canyon. There’s clearly more to improve on the design and overall impact of the development, and no obligation for the County to merely proceed.
The development of iconic Quigley Canyon is a matter of public concern and more than worthy of a lengthy and messy public process. Every public hearing is an opportunity for this community to stay involved. The developer’s team will be there on Monday night – so any citizen who thinks there’s a better outcome for one of Hailey’s last remaining valley floors, and its accompanying dirt road, should be there too.
Email update sent September 15, 2023
With 350 comments submitted so far opposing the Quigley Ranch application, it’s clear that this community wants to preserve open space, conserve water, and protect wildlife. Thank you to everyone who has made their voice heard! Two final hearings have been scheduled to discuss the proposed development:
Tuesday, September 19 at 1:30pm (Old County Courthouse)
Monday, October 2 at 5:30pm (Old County Courthouse)
It is vital that we get as many comments as possible to the commissioners, ideally before next Tuesday’s meeting. Consider copying the letter on the front page of this site, or writing your own, and emailing it ASAP to pzcounter@co.blaine.id.us. If you’re able to attend either of the hearings, in person or digitally, please do so! The commissioners are feeling the pressure – development is not inevitable, unstoppable, or beyond our control. Quigley Canyon can still be saved.
Email update sent August 26, 2023
Quigley Ranch update – FINAL Public Hearing(s) set for Tuesday, Sept 19
We’ve just learned that the fate of Quigley Canyon, with the approval or denial of the Quigley Ranch application, is set to be determined on Tuesday, September 19, following a public hearing (time TBD). There’s much to be said about what’s taken place with this application over the last 18 months and if you haven’t been following please visit www.savequigleycanyon.com, as well as the county website, where you’ll find all of the application materials along with hundreds of comments in opposition of this project. This is an extremely important decision that will dramatically affect the legacy of this community. Let your voice be heard. What you can do right now:
– Email the Blaine County Commissioners. Explain to them how important Quigley Canyon is as open space, as a wildlife corridor, as a highly accessible dirt road open to users of all ages and abilities, as a nordic ski complex, and as anything else that it means to you. Remember this project involves paving Quigley Road for over a mile and greatly reducing the current network of nordic trails – and pushing the entrance to those trails closer to avalanche prone north slopes.Commissioner Muffy Davis: mdavis@co.blaine.id.us
Commissioner Angenie McCleary: amccleary@co.blaine.id.us
Commissioner Lindsay Mollineaux: lmollineaux@co.blaine.id.us
– Any citizens of Hailey should email the City that you DO NOT support Quigley Ranch. On the city council agenda for Monday the 28th, there is already a motion for Mayor Burke to send a support letter to the commissioners regarding the updated Quigley Ranch application (despite no time for constituent input, I might add).
Mayor Martha Burke:martha.burke@haileycityhall.org
Council President Kaz Thea: kaz.thea@haileycityhall.orgCouncil member Heidi Husbands: heidi.husbands@haileycityhall.orgCouncil member Sam Linnett: sam.linnet@haileycityhall.orgCouncil member Juan Martinez: juan.martinez@haileycityhall.org
– Forward this email to your friends and neighbors. The Mountain Express has done zero reporting on this in the last 9 months and information is power. Please spread the word.
– Make a post on social media! Include your most beautiful photos of the canyon, its wildlife and what you enjoy out there. Our instagram handle is @save_quigley.
– Email me if you’d like flyers or stickers for folks walking Quigley Road. Many people are still unaware of what’s happening and conversations can have a big impact.What you can do on September 19:
– Show up at the hearing! I can’t emphasize this enough. A packed room full of concerned constituents is what we want the County to see.
– Stand up and make a comment! The developer is going to say their piece. Let’s make sure to say ours.
Now, for for those that feel like this development is inevitable, or that this is the best possible outcome, please consider the following:
1. Land owners have the right to develop their property – but only in ways that are appropriate and consistent with local zoning and land-use plans. Even with the removal of the hillside lots, this application fails to meet many of the criteria set forth in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning codes. The cul-de-sacs, as just one example, were specifically mentioned in the P&Z report and yet remain a part of this proposal. Quigley Canyon is an area designated by the County itself as inappropriate for development, due to its wildlife and recreational importance (see attached BC map). Twenty four one-acres lots is not what anyone would consider a strictly regulated addition to some of the last available and contiguous open space on a valley floor. There are 135 eligible acres for the property owner to build on and they’re choosing to develop 94 of those acres. Does that sound like a good faith effort to make minimal impact?
2. The parcels being discussed for Quigley Ranch are zoned R-5, meaning the base density of all 135 available acres is one residence per 5 acres. The developer is applying for a PUD that increases density with one-acre lots (but not in the way that promotes affordable housing). Particularly because Quigley Canyon is a sensitive natural resource area, the commissioners can look at this application as not meeting the standards for evaluation of PUD proposals, without violating any property rights.
There is a different future for Quigley – one that serves our community and not a development company and 24 individual homeowners. As always, spread the word and let me know if you want to help! I’ll continue to update the website with more details and talking points.
Email update sent August 4th, 2023
Dear friend,
While it’s been a quiet summer for the developers behind Quigley Ranch, we assumed that they would eventually proceed with the application, or some version of it. On July 24th, they did indeed submit updated application materials to Planning & Zoning, which included a number of notable changes. My description of the changes below is by no means complete, and P&Z will issue a more thorough summary when they’ve finished their analysis. Moreover, even though the changes to the application are substantial, it’s unclear whether the application will be required to undergo the entire P&Z process again or if it will be immediately handed over to the commissioners for a decision. Regardless of the application’s trajectory from here, it’s our right to stay involved in the process, share publicly accessible materials, and make our voices heard.
As you’ll notice from the updated maps, the 6 “hillside” lots have been moved to the valley floor. These large, 5-acre lots were a major concern and eliminating them is certainly a good thing. At the same time, by adding 6 more lots to the three clusters, the amount of open space in the canyon has been reduced. The corridors set up for migrating/wintering animals have gone from 200′ to 150′ a piece, and the available acreage for nordic skiing in between and to the south of the development appears to be quite lean – and very close to actual avalanche slide paths. It’s also possible that the new layout lengthens the development, eating up more acreage in the canyon. What didn’t change in the new layout is the relocation and paving over of Quigley Road for up to a mile.
Obviously the developers reviewed the plethora of P&Z suggestions, following the latter’s recommendation for denial, and made what they determined to be the necessary changes for approval by the commissioners. However, it’s the opinion of our quorum that the PUD application for Quigley Ranch be rejected as it plainly fails to meet the development standards set forth in Blaine County’s zoning codes, as well as in the comprehensive plan. Land owners have the right to develop their property – but only in ways that are appropriate and consistent with local zoning and land-use plans.
Like I said, P&Z has yet to issue any findings and no new hearings have been scheduled. But get those emails researched and queued up for when the public comment period does open! Forward these maps along and feel free to reach out to me if you have any ideas. Ultimately, Quigley Canyon is a major recreational and wildlife asset that should be left alone. The construction of Quigley Farms is development enough. Contrary to what the developer wants us to believe, a bunch of massive homes out the most pristine canyon neighboring Hailey is not inevitable. The commissioners are under no obligation to grant approval.
Finally, to provide you with a little fodder for your letters, I attached a map from Blaine County’s comprehensive plan, which highlights areas in our valley that are least appropriate for development. At least half of the proposed Quigley Ranch falls into one of those areas. Does 24 large lots ranging from 1-2 acres and the removal of a beloved access road sound like a strictly regulated residential development?
Please share this information and get ready to tell Blaine County to reject Quigley Ranch – for our community, our wildlife, and our water!