[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6533070,"mediaKeyId","3798481-ae28e5d00e82385ed35a1945a75dff96","parentId",3798481,"title","County weighs stronger shoreline enforcement, education as tribe and DEQ urge protection of lakes","audioSeconds",1789,"startMs",3034000,"endMs",4823000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3798481-ae28e5d00e82385ed35a1945a75dff96&start=3034&end=4823","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3798481-ae28e5d00e82385ed35a1945a75dff96/thumbnail_3034000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6533070/Kootenai-County/Idaho/County-weighs-stronger-shoreline-enforcement-education-as-tribe-and-DEQ-urge-protection-of-lakes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533070-776e9402fde25b1b066afc2da956cf49/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169296&Signature=mRlpAhPd4QU4MdUGUBBfRdFLCRZ8S3kxsUQM6fbhdqxkGPT23f8T0WVOR-I8aeu83nYYEK2gbFzGI1X~7TfGwZsb3~RiEvlk5o6QyAQmCGTmYe6eV5jqsksL4xyumzz3WYtB4CuZhvtkESnHllORV-uS4S~RrWMGnXdE2pp1BuDUtvWzChwcieb6pkX5gx9WhtZ6xo86q6OiuKx7XPMsa~hg~Vfe2NO~YofpFuyYTTb4O4xpGMJViUF7vzuEgl4NHY3SXtqqysfIzBhJ2mD6IJ61dhfC4oJ2QcXNSpVA6-OtWXRuRiTCZVdwvFc189knIGT3xSazQBkGx5LYymU0iQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kootenai County","date","2025-06-13T06:25:10Z","article","Kootenai County commissioners on Thursday discussed ways to strengthen enforcement and encourage compliance with shoreline and site-disturbance rules after staff presented multiple examples of cleared buffers, removed vegetation and large retaining walls along county shorelines.

David Callahan, Community Development director, described dozens of current cases and images of shoreline disturbance and told commissioners that modest fines in the existing fee schedule are inadequate to address damage that can cost tens of thousands of dollars to remediate. \"The fines that we have are inconsequential,\" he said, and noted that the county's code includes a civil-penalty tool of up to $1,000 per day (capped at $20,000) for recorded violations but that triggering it requires prior notice and recorded findings.

Community Development staff said about 65 active shoreline or site-disturbance cases exist in the county; staff estimated roughly half are the result of homeowner or contractor ignorance. Staff suggested a tiered enforcement approach and proposed to return with a proposed fee schedule for egregious violations and clearer, stepwise enforcement actions rather than relying solely on modest fees.

Speakers with water-quality and tribal responsibility pressed the county for protective action. Jillian Harmon, speaking earlier about the Elder Road item, and Rebecca Stevens of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe urged stronger shoreline protection; Stevens recounted past lake-shoreline surveys and said keeping native riparian vegetation matters because \"when they keep it and maintain it to slow that runoff ... their neighbors tend to do the same thing.\" Jamie Bruner of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, who chairs the regional shoreland education committee (SEAP), urged prevention and education and offered the SEAP program as a resource for certification and outreach.

Commissioners discussed remedies that prioritize curing violations rather than revenue generation. Several commissioners said they favor requiring remediation and, where appropriate, suspending or holding a civil penalty in abeyance while the owner cures the violation. Legal counsel confirmed that the code permits a civil penalty for a recorded violation, and commissioners discussed ensuring notice, cure periods, and the recorded notice would appear in title records so prospective buyers are aware of unresolved violations.

Commissioners and staff also discussed targeting contractors through education or possible disciplinary steps. Staff said homeowners are ultimately responsible but acknowledged that some contractors knowingly perform unpermitted shoreline work. Commissioners asked staff to explore options such as contractor certification, education requirements (SEAP), a due-process “debarment” or ‘‘problem contractor’’ mechanism (noting that such a list could expose the county to legal risk unless due process protections and thresholds were codified), and stronger, tiered enforcement steps that emphasize remediation.

What’s next: staff will draft possible amendments or administrative procedures for a tiered enforcement approach, a clear cure-and-appeal timeline, and options for contractor education and accountability, and return to the board with recommendations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","6/12/2025 Board of County Commissioners: Community Development","oneSentenceSummary","Kootenai County discussed tougher responses to shoreline and site-disturbance violations after staff showed photos of cleared shorelines and retaining walls; the Coeur d'Alene Tribe and Idaho DEQ urged stronger protection and education, commissioners asked staff to pursue remedies and consider code changes and contractor accountability measures.","taxTitle","Kootenai County, Idaho","taxId",3567,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6533075,"Kootenai County staff propose collecting larger portions of permit fees up front to avoid unpaid review work",824,2107000,2931000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3798481-ae28e5d00e82385ed35a1945a75dff96&start=2107&end=2931","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3798481-ae28e5d00e82385ed35a1945a75dff96/thumbnail_2107000.jpg","/articles/6533075/Kootenai-County/Idaho/Kootenai-County-staff-propose-collecting-larger-portions-of-permit-fees-up-front-to-avoid-unpaid-review-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533075-8d02aea1c42fee2814abfe46a2daea40/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169296&Signature=m3~pK3KOjYeGmlHUOeCAwj6WMhknw99t3QZl-lSc24BIXqTcC7mEzA5iRBNqncncsTGbqgM7sp4iFfOVcr3aCr1T6M6jgn0pIfFlle2-kucWx5gCM28uiyv~E5gPJhkvkBYV57fGWge93sbdrLzGx-l4LxuGzAKiwEJEi12Ik2trio5lTF-gqMr8W18VCUHryAW7GPU7iujg9NtvbMzCt85Q7mjLYVI0Q9BUFoOongjTqOtd5kYNu1wFCD70Bkg27N00Qnh1MfJlzeJHVIKqsBpzZzo0qTrEvfM97xty2O5ZROfczgyivLghird6u7mZPOQI5OLeMeuXswrGzay0RA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kootenai County Community Development staff on Thursday asked commissioners for direction to collect more permit fees up front so the county is not left covering the cost of plan reviews and other staff work when applicants abandon projects.

David Callahan, Community Development director, told the board the department often performs plan reviews and other services before collecting the full permit fee. \"That is problematic,\" he said, explaining the department sometimes spends substantial staff time before a final payment is made.

Craig Davidson, Community Development, presented the department’s figures: $449,922 in permits outstanding, with planning fees representing roughly 17%–22% of that total (staff used 20% in examples). Davidson said shifting more of the known, hard-cost review fees to upfront collection could capture about $80,000 more in fees now being left unpaid. He noted the department currently collects a $134 application fee at submittal and that collecting known review fees up front would limit cases where staff has completed work but not been paid.

The commissioners and staff spent the bulk of the discussion on how to balance fiscal stewardship with customer service. Commissioners said they do not want permitting to become a de facto taxpayer subsidy, but they also want to avoid imposing disproportionate costs on homeowners or small developers who discover a project will not proceed after paying fees.

Commissioners pressed staff on whether the county could adopt an iterative billing model: collect a modest upfront amount for early, low-risk reviews and bill additional, larger known-review fees only as the project progresses (for example, when a project moves from pre-application to formal plan review). Staff said the county has the ability to refund fees in rare cases but needs to coordinate with the auditor and chief billing officer on any procedural change. The director and staff also noted neighboring cities (Spokane jurisdictions) already collect similar review fees up front; Rathdrum was cited as an exception.

Staff provided several examples of fees that could be collected at submittal (administrative exemptions, extension requests, pre-application fees) and presented typical review fees (commercial site-plan review, residential planning permit review) as examples of known hard costs that could be collected upfront. Davidson said there are nine \"ready to issue\" residential permits totaling about $55,000; if fees were not collected and those applicants walked away, staff work at risk would total about $11,000 for those nine permits.

Commissioners asked staff to return with a refined approach that could include: (1) a clear, stepwise billing structure so applicants understand the likely costs at each stage; (2) an exceptions and refund policy tied to code and state changes; and (3) staff coordination with the auditor’s office to ensure refund and accounting practices are workable. The board gave staff direction to continue working internally and with the auditor and to return with proposed language and procedures for an iterative or upfront-fee approach.

","Community Development staff told Kootenai County commissioners they want to collect more permitting fees up front to avoid unpaid review costs, citing roughly $449,922 in unpaid permits and a potential $80,000 in staff-review work at risk; commissioners asked staff to refine an incremental, stepwise billing approach.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6533080,"Kootenai County continues Elder Road conditional-zoning hearing to July 10",1949,145000,2094000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3798481-ae28e5d00e82385ed35a1945a75dff96&start=145&end=2094","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3798481-ae28e5d00e82385ed35a1945a75dff96/thumbnail_145000.jpg","/articles/6533080/Kootenai-County/Idaho/Kootenai-County-continues-Elder-Road-conditional-zoning-hearing-to-July-10","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533080-4969b90b30c297cb16c1676c42c29dd3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169296&Signature=o~TnFjheSXjL9D6liQpdnURxOl2shWmPb~8o1mmLrQxRKbA3UoSbByXbbmHXgnAhD3T~lYb0HaFqfNjPmhMPsJiDr2UIuncl0dxhbJSu14oKBBfYZcGpwN6xPQCkvXXb907LXqJIfPW91LbJjaeeSUjG3Vap5cdLbN-im-x4o6hkRlUlhHET~jt5MyGNn9nXsfZkcw9qHrF1yKNTvD7Twxhix6qdsKkiaXU~7Qmm9fpD~Hi13sW~kyrMb57HuBVOy9EzeJNAiDXVWuPS5EMNDblIaR70hhi1Cg4V-iDCtAeuSTUnBiNIZPa1iHz2pE~ireuNHQvDTOf4iZHASDDwVw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kootenai County commissioners on Thursday continued the public hearing on a proposed conditional zoning development agreement for two parcels on Elder Road, setting a new hearing for July 10 at 10 a.m.

The hearing, a continuation of a May 8 public hearing on ZON24-0007 and ZON24-0008, focused on a CZDA the applicant submitted to expand permitted commercial uses beyond earlier, narrowly written conditional use permits approved for an RV park and boat-storage facility. County staff said the CZDA as drafted is broader than the conditional permits and broader than what staff considers appropriate for that rural location.

Ben Tarbutton, Community Development staff, told the board that the CZDA would allow a broader scope of commercial activity than the property’s existing conditional use permits. \"In our opinion, the proposed conditional zoning development agreement is too broad in scope,\" he said, adding that the CZDA excludes only a few uses that normally are allowed in a straight commercial zone.

Why it matters: commissioners said the key policy choice is whether to change the zoning to a commercial designation with wide-ranging allowable uses or to use a narrower CZDA that approves specific uses and project limits. The parcels previously had narrowly defined conditional uses; multiple commissioners said they prefer specific, limited language rather than broad, open-ended zoning.

County staff displayed the CZDA's principal numeric limit: a 5% maximum building-footprint cap based on parcel area. Staff calculated that cap as roughly 73,000 square feet on the 33-acre westerly parcel and about 59,000 square feet on the 27-acre easterly parcel, and noted staff does not view the 5% cap as a strong restriction. Ray Kimball, speaking for the applicant, said the 5% cap was intentional to prevent large, inappropriate developments and to preserve most of the property free of structures while allowing small commercial uses.

Public testimony was mixed. Jillian Harmon, representing the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, reiterated tribal opposition and said the tribe \"formally and strongly opposes the application and strongly urges the county to deny it.\" Nearby property owner Mike Hill said he was \"strongly opposed\" and declined to add new comments beyond prior testimony. The applicant's representative said the applicant had edited the CZDA to remove what they considered the most objectionable commercial uses and reported more than 90% public support among respondents.

Commissioners debated next steps and legal constraints. Several commissioners said they preferred that staff and the applicant work together to narrow the CZDA or propose limited changes to the conditional use permits already approved, rather than approve a broad rezoning. Legal counsel and staff advised that expanding existing conditional use permits to add uses not authorized by the zone may be legally problematic and that the CZDA is the correct mechanism if the board wants to authorize a limited, project-specific set of allowed uses.

The board took one formal action: a motion to continue the public hearing for ZON24-0007 and ZON24-0008 to July 10 at 10 a.m. The motion passed unanimously.

What’s next: staff and the applicant were directed to continue negotiations and return to the board with a narrowed CZDA or other specific, use-limited proposals for the commissioners to consider on July 10.

","The Kootenai County Community Development hearing on a proposed conditional zoning development agreement (CZDA) for two Elder Road parcels was continued to July 10 after staff and commissioners said the CZDA is broader than the previously approved conditional uses and asked the applicant to narrow proposed uses.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County weighs stronger shoreline enforcement, education as tribe and DEQ urge protection of lakes

Kootenai County staff propose collecting larger portions of permit fees up front to avoid unpaid review work

Kootenai County continues Elder Road conditional-zoning hearing to July 10