Judge’s ruling keeps Triumph Springs
case
By GREGORY FOLEY
Express Staff Writer
Fifth District Court Judge James May ruled
in Hailey last week that he will not dismiss the last of seven relevant counts
in a $10 million lawsuit against the city of Sun Valley.
Rand Peebles, Sun Valley city attorney,
and Carl Ericson, a Boise-based attorney also representing the city, on Dec. 22,
2003, had asked May to dismiss one of seven counts listed in a 2002 lawsuit
brought by development group Lane Ranch Partnership.
In a separate motion, Ericson on the same
day asked that the court award the city approximately $86,000 in attorney fees
and court costs.
In a decision issued Dec. 30, 2003, May
denied both motions by the city attorneys, thereby keeping the case alive in the
5th District Court.
The debate at issue is over a 2001
application by Lane Ranch Partnership to rezone a portion of a 166-acre parcel
of property known as Triumph Springs.
The application included a proposal to
rezone property from the city’s Outdoor-Recreation zoning district to the Rural
and Ranch Estate zoning district. The proposal also requested an associated
amendment to the Sun Valley Comprehensive Plan.
The rezone request was issued to
accommodate the development of a new Triumph Springs subdivision, which would
include seven new residential lots north of Lane Ranch subdivision and the
southern entrance to Sun Valley.
After the city denied the application,
attorneys for Lane Ranch then filed a lawsuit against the city. The suit alleged
in part that the city’s decision was an "unlawful taking" and demanded
compensation of more than $10 million.
In June 2003, city attorneys asked the
court to make a so-called "summary judgment" in the case.
In August 2003, May issued judgment on six
counts listed in the lawsuit, essentially ruling in favor of the city and
rejecting a claim by the developers that they were entitled to the proposed
rezone.
However, the seventh count in the
lawsuit—which requested "judicial review of the city’s actions"—had been set
aside by the two parties and was not directly ruled upon by May in his summary
judgment.
In his most recent decision, May noted
that the petition for judicial review of the matter "is a separate issue and is
different from those issues presented previously on the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment."
May also ruled that "there is no final
judgment on the merits (of the case) and it would therefore be inappropriate to
award attorney fees at this time."
Peebles had said a decision favorable to
the city would have likely meant the case would be appealed to the Idaho Supreme
Court.