Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline And Waterfront Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kootenai County adopts interim ordinance to regulate marine service businesses on inland lakes
Summary
The county approved ORA25-2, an interim ordinance creating a defined marine services use in commercial zones and allowing specified activities within a 25-foot shoreline protection area; the board added language to permit not-for-profit operators.
Get email alerts on the Shoreline And Waterfront Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kootenai County commissioners on April 10 approved ORA25-2, an interim ordinance that creates a marine services use in county commercial zones and permits certain marine-related activities within the 25-foot shoreline protection zone.
Director David Callahan, who presented the ordinance, said the change "fills a gap in our current development code where we have never actually had a marine services section" and that the interim approach lets staff later refine a permanent rule as part of the comprehensive-plan update. Ben Tarbutton, who joined Callahan for the presentation, told the board staff coordinated with other agencies while drafting performance standards and definitions.
The ordinance adds marine services as an allowed use in commercial zoning, establishes performance standards and a shoreline-management exception for specified activities near Coeur d'Alene Lake and other local lakes. Callahan said the county had previously handled similar activity on a case-by-case basis, which required variances or zone-change processes for properties such as the Wolf Lodge Bay area.
Consultant and longtime local waterfront practitioner John Condon spoke in support during the public hearing. "I applaud you for taking some action now," Condon said, noting he first noticed the inconsistency years earlier when the county undertook work at Carlin Bay.
Commissioners discussed whether the ordinance should allow only for-profit operators or also nonprofit entities—for instance, camps that maintain docks for program use. After discussion, the board directed staff to amend the Section 5 definition to include not-for-profit organizations. Callahan and Tarbutton said the interim ordinance can be revisited within a year and refined in a permanent ordinance if issues arise.
The board voted 3–0 to approve ORA25-2 with the amendment to add not-for-profit in Section 5. Commissioner Eberline voted aye, Commissioner Duncan voted aye, and Chair Metari voted aye.
The interim ordinance also clarifies that existing county improvements to boat launches and similar infrastructure—work the county has at times performed despite an absence of an explicit allowance—will fall under the new code where they meet the performance standards. Staff emphasized that the ordinance is intended to provide clear expectations and reduce the need for variances or ad hoc interpretations moving forward.
The county will publish the amended interim ordinance and monitor its effects; staff said they plan to return within a year to consider any needed permanent-code changes or adjustments.

