SANDPOINT - A U.S. District Court judge on Friday clipped three-fourths of SilverWing at Sandpoint's lawsuit against Bonner County.

SilverWing began work on the fly-in housing development on 18 acres on the west side of Sandpoint Airport in 2006. Dwellings would be part aircraft hangar part home and residents would have through-the-fence access to the airport.

Since then, project developers proceeded to spend $6.1 million installing infrastructure, including a west-side taxiway. A demonstration hangar home was also constructed.

In 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration advised the county the airport was out of compliance because it allowed SilverWing through-the-fence access without the agency's approval. The non-compliance status cast a pall over the marketability of SilverWing's 45 housing units.

The following year, the FAA raised concerns that the SilverWing project would interfere with a plan to improve the design standard of the runway to accommodate larger aircraft.

The improvement plan proposed shifting the runway 60 feet to the west, which put it too close to the west-side taxiway.

SilverWing ultimately filed suit in federal court in 2012, alleging it was misled by the county about the planned runway relocation and FAA approval of the access agreement. The suit further alleged that the county violated the developers' civil rights via inverse condemnation and denial of equal protection of law.

The county moved for summary judgment earlier this year, arguing that SilverWing's two federal law claims and two state law claims should be dismissed as a matter of law. The county maintained that one of the state law claims - breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing - should be dismissed because it was acting in order to comply with federal regulations that preempt state law.

Judge Edward Lodge agreed, according to a 29-page opinion. Lodge ruled that the county must comply with FAA regulations regarding runway-taxiway separation and through-the-fence access.

Lodge also dismissed SilverWing's two civil rights claims. He held that there was no allegation that the county had a policy or custom in place that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations, a finding that's required to sustain such claims.

Lodge, however, ruled that federal law did not preempt SilverWing's state law claim of primary estoppel, also known as detrimental reliance. SilverWing argued that it reasonably relied upon the county's promise that there were no plans to change the runway location to its economic detriment.

"The promissory estoppel claim centers around allegations involving the county's representations to SilverWing upon which SilverWing relied in moving forward with the proposed development and expending a great deal of money," Lodge wrote.