EMMETT, Idaho — Gem County commissioners heard arguments Monday afternoon over whether a private airstrip approved near Brill Road in June should stand — as neighbors and developers continued to clash over whether the Flying Thunderbolt Ranch airstrip fits the rural character of west Gem County.
Gem County Planning and Zoning approved the Flying Thunderbolt Ranch airstrip — SUP 25-10 — in June. That decision is now under appeal. Monday's hearing was not a public hearing. Each side received 30 minutes to present, with the appellants reserving time for rebuttal.
RELATED | Flying Thunderbolt Ranch airstrip approved after heated debate in Gem County
The proposed airstrip would be located on about 20 acres within a larger 120-acre parcel zoned A2 rural transitional agriculture, surrounded by rural residential and irrigated farmland. The Flying Thunderbolt Ranch subdivision was granted preliminary plat approval about a year and a half ago — 19 five-plus-acre lots surrounding a 20-acre central common lot where the airfield is proposed. One hangar would be allowed per lot.
The airstrip would be a private, non-commercial grass surface runway approximately 3,000 feet long — comparable to the Emmett Airport at 3,300 feet. It would be limited to subdivision property owners, with a maximum of 19 total takeoffs per week for the entire subdivision. The project was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 3-1 vote with 21 conditions of approval. The FAA reviewed the airstrip and issued a determination of no objection.
Attorney Abbey Germaine represented Kevin Potter and other adjacent property owners. She argued the project fails to meet the county's 9 special use permit criteria — specifically criteria B, C, D, F, and G — and that conditions of approval cannot substitute for the required findings.
"If one of the criteria of the special use permit cannot be met, the application and the project cannot be approved," Germaine said.
Germaine noted that a private airstrip is not allowed by right in the A2 zone and must meet all special use permit criteria. She cited testimony from the Planning and Zoning hearing in which more than 18 people opposed the project, including neighbors whose livelihoods would be directly affected.
Steve and Linda K. Jones operate a farm with equestrian education and endangered breed preservation nearby — they testified that even existing overhead air traffic stops lessons and that an adjacent airstrip would be highly detrimental to their business. Bo Burke has operated a wedding venue adjacent to the proposed airstrip for 15 years and said the noise would ruin the business. Potter himself raises Angus cattle and Hampshire sheep directly south of the proposed facility and cited livestock stress from noise and disturbances.
Germaine also pointed to statements made by Planning and Zoning commissioners during their own deliberations — one stating an airstrip is not an identified use in the future land use map and questioning whether the permit should be approved even if it could be. Another said they did not believe the project met the purpose of the zone and that it was not harmonious with living around it.
Germaine argued the commission spent the majority of its deliberation time struggling to meet the criteria, and only addressed mitigation in about three paragraphs right before the motion to approve. She noted one commissioner stated before the vote: "I don't know. It's not 100% either way."
"They didn't go through and say, we found that based on the studies, 19 takeoffs means that this will not have a disturbing effect on the neighbors. That wasn't done," Germaine said.
On the decibel condition, Germaine argued there is a fundamental disagreement between the parties about how FAA noise figures are measured. She said the readings in 14 CFR Part 36 are taken with a microphone at the middle of the runway with the plane 1,000 feet above — not at takeoff — meaning the 80-decibel limit in condition 15 may be unenforceable at the moment it matters most to neighbors.
"We know that takeoff is going to be louder than cruising altitude, and there's been no information or studies to support that they will be able to stay under 80 decibels," Germaine said.
Germaine also raised the question of who would enforce the conditions and how neighbors would prove a violation.
Potter addressed the commissioners directly, describing the formation of the Rural Gem County Coalition — a group he said is pro-smart growth, not anti-growth.
"The grass tells us what it looks like but does not tell us what it sounds like. It is noise pollution that we cannot escape," Potter said.
Potter questioned the logic of the 19-flight limit.
"Why 19? What's the magic in 19? Why do I know that that's gonna protect my home, my animals, or my ability to sell my property later in the future?" Potter said.
Potter also raised concerns about modified aircraft engines — noting that plane owners "soup them up to go faster and to be louder" — meaning FAA decibel ratings based on stock planes may not apply. He cited a letter from Nate Bonovitz noting a Cessna 172 typically needs a half to a mile and a half to reach 500 feet elevation, and argued that his property directly across Brill Road deserves airspace protection.
Potter raised safety concerns about spooked cattle potentially jumping fences, the horse training facility serving people with special needs and hearing impairments, and the wedding venue where events are planned months in advance.
"I want to keep living here. I want my neighbors to be able to stay. Please help us protect our rural community. Please overturn the special use permit," Potter said.
"The longer that we've studied this, we realized that it's not compatible and it's not harmonious," Potter said.
RELATED | 'I don't need an airport brought to me,': Emmett neighbors voice opposition to proposed airstrip
Attorney Elizabeth Keckritz represented Jay and Andy Labrum of Flying Thunderbolt Ranch. She argued the project as conditioned satisfies all 9 special use permit standards and that the Planning and Zoning Commission's 3-1 approval should be upheld.
"The question is whether this private non-commercial grass airstrip, as limited by the 21 conditions of approval, satisfies Gem County Code's 9 special use permit standards. We hold that it does. The Planning and Zoning Commission found that it did, and the record supports that decision," Keckritz said.
Keckritz said the applicants confirmed the 80-decibel limit at 450 meters is correct based on thrust calculations and is measured at takeoff. She cited the Greenleaf Air Park in Canyon County as a comparable example — noting that between August 2020 and June 2026, none of the noise calls to the Canyon County Sheriff were related to aircraft.
Keckritz said cars and heavy trucks passing on a road 50 feet away are louder than the expected noise from the airstrip. She noted the closest homes are approximately 680, 820, and 1,900 feet from the runway centerline, and that the northeast departure corridor heads away from the nearest homes.
Jay Labrum addressed commissioners directly on technical questions. He said the 3,000-foot runway is comparable to the Emmett Airport and that pilots always try to climb away from the ground as quickly as possible. He noted 45-foot power lines on the south side of the airstrip along Potter's Lane will naturally prevent low flying from the south and push departures to the north. He said the applicants plan to publish a noise abatement procedure directing pilots to avoid homes to the maximum extent possible, including a dog-leg to the northeast on northbound departures.
In response to a commissioner's question, Labram confirmed that a guest flying with a neighbor would count toward the 19-flight weekly limit — and that theoretically all 19 takeoffs could happen in a single day, though that is not expected.
Keckritz said the conditions are enforceable — an online scheduling and tracking system requiring the neighbor's name and aircraft tail number is already operational, and any unlogged takeoff constitutes a zoning violation. The county has annual review authority and express revocation authority under condition 21.
Keckritz also noted that Jay Labram intends to have his own 4H animals at the property — arguing he would not do so if he expected the airstrip to disturb his own livestock.
"The commission did what the county code asks a land use decision maker to do. It heard both sides. It identified the disputed impacts, reduced the intensity of their proposal, imposed 21 separate enforceable conditions, and explained in writing why the conditional use satisfied each approval standard," Keckritz said.
Gem County commissioners did not make a final decision and took the appeal under advisement. The next discussion is expected Oct. 19.
