Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Kootenai County comprehensive plan to get another look

A long-running tug-of-war over how Kootenai County controls growth and development is swinging back toward private property interests.

The last attempt to update the county’s land use code sparked a backlash from builders and rural landowners, and ended up in the trash can.

Two new county commissioners who ran on pledges to reinforce the rights of property owners are leading a new charge at development regulations as well as the broader policies that shape the landscape and character of unincorporated areas.

Officials kicked off the discussion Monday in a meeting that drew dozens of residents. Several said they believed their views were overlooked when the county last tried to rewrite regulations – a three-year, $400,000 ordeal scuttled in 2013.

“In my opinion it was very one-sided last time,” said Bill Matson, a homebuilder who shared his frustration with county rules that hold back construction on Lake Coeur d’Alene.

Art Macomber, a land use attorney who represents owners in the county, said contractors need more certainty from the county’s development office.

“We are coming out of a tough recession and people are really suffering economically,” he said. “We need to have some clear, simple, simple, simple rules so people can make investments and move forward.”

Commissioners said they want to adopt a streamlined, interim land use code this year, and then tackle revisions to the county’s 2010 comprehensive plan, which is the county’s 20-year policy blueprint for growth and development.

David Stewart, chairman of the Board of Commissioners, said the ill-fated land use code update motivated rural residents to tune in and vote for a new direction in November’s general election.

“We’ve woke up a whole group of people out there that I don’t think were really awake when the comprehensive plan was going through,” Stewart said. “So I think the outcome of a new comprehensive plan is going to be substantially different.”

He and Commissioner Marc Eberlein, who share views on land use, said they disagree with the comp plan’s goal of having at least 70 percent of new growth occur within cities.

“I don’t think that should be a goal of a government entity, to direct people where to live,” Eberlein said.

Commissioner Dan Green, who served on the county planning and zoning commission when the comp plan was written, pointed out that more than 70 percent of growth already happens in cities – for good reason.

“They can handle the density because of the services” that cities provide, Green said.

He also said the policies in the comp plan were shaped by “almost runaway growth” in the early part of the last decade. “And now we’re coming out of a different economic cycle that brings different people to the forefront with concerns,” Green said. “So it is a living, breathing document that needs to be updated.”

David Callahan, the county’s community development director, suggested an approach he used in Colorado that’s far less onerous than a complete overhaul of the comp plan: distill the hefty document down to a few pages of key policy directives that guide the county staff. He called it “the straight, no chaser approach.”

Callahan also cautioned the commissioners that they still will encounter public disagreement over how and where growth should occur.

“I understand your point of view loud and clear,” he said. “But there are others in the community – and some of them may be property owners in the unincorporated county – who don’t share it. So that’s where we need to come to the table and understand each other and work through this.”

Rural resident Bev Twillmann with Neighbors for Responsible Growth, a group that wants to preserve rural areas, said she agrees the process has dragged on too long and been unbalanced at times. But that doesn’t mean voices for growth management and lake protection should be ignored, she said.

“I think balance is your key, all of you.”