County shoreline rule changes tabled after two hour debate - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

County shoreline rule changes tabled after two hour debate

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, April 8, 2011 12:00 am

One thing everyone agrees on: Kootenai County needs to fix its law restricting shoreline ground disturbance.

But how to do so was the big question on Thursday, when the county commissioners held a public hearing over a proposed amendment for the site disturbance ordinance.

After collecting two hours of testimony, the officials voted anonymously to continue deliberations later in the month, in order to process the mixed opinions.

"I think it's necessary to modify certain things," said Commissioner Todd Tondee. "It (the current law) is very frustrating, I think, to all people, both on the environmental side, and for issues of property owners who want to prevent erosion, and part of our ordinance doesn't allow it."

Commissioner Dan Green added that the commissioners should amend the convoluted law as soon as possible, as a temporary fix before all development laws are rewritten to implement the Comprehensive Plan.

"It's one of the most violated ordinances. It makes good people with good intentions violators," Green said. "There are times, in attempts to protect quality, and I've actually seen it (the ordinance) degrade water quality. That frustrates me."

The amendment, proposed by the county Building and Planning Department, aims at streamlining the ordinance language to clarify development standards within shoreline buffer zones.

It would also create two exceptions allowing mechanized equipment within those buffer zones - currently not allowed - for specific projects like erosion control.

A third proposed exception would allow the commissioners to approve building activities within the zones that are deemed beneficial to the public.

Many of the 20 individuals who attended the hearing opposed the amendment.

"The section that concerns me is exception No. 3. I know language, and that language is a barn door wide open," said Coeur d'Alene resident Wes Hanson. "It allows development of any size that directly or indirectly benefits the public, and that's going to be everyone's argument. Then you'll be constantly weighing what is or isn't a public benefit."

He would prefer the commissioners don't touch the law, he said, and leave the corrections to the consultant firm the county just hired to help rewrite development ordinances.

"We should let the professionals do their thing," Hanson said.

Brett Boyer, speaking for the Coeur d'Alene Lakeshore Property Owners Association, requested the same.

Waterfront property owners might have more of a say in the process then, he said.

Terry Harris with Kootenai Environmental Alliance also said the third exception isn't too subjective about what projects would be allowed.

The commissioners will resume deliberations at 10 a.m. on April 28 in the board chambers in the county Administration Building.

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

9 comments:

  • JoeIdaho posted at 11:10 am on Sun, Apr 10, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Yes, NIN, you do not have a clue....again.
    ALL land in the United States was deeded to individual citizens, INCLUDING wherever you live. This insane idea that the "people" owned Lake CDA's shorelines (making it somehow weirdly different than the rest of the land in America) is just that, insane.
    You also (strangely) said that:
    "Shoreline erosion and water quality are caused by the construction of homes and developments around the Lake not by natural causes"
    Ummm.....NO.
    "Natural causes" Do in fact cause erosion, all the time. As in ALWAYS.

    Then; you said:
    "the shoreline of the lake has changed for thousands of years"
    COMPLETELY contradicting what you stated previously; that erosion isn't caused by "natural causes"???

    I guess the big issue for you is that you just hate anyone who has more than you do; and that includes shoreline property owners, who are just trying to fight their way through dumb californiaesque rules & regulations.
    You; on the other hand are FOR making CDA into little Cal, so do your thing. We'll be fighting you all the way there.


     
  • northidahonative posted at 10:11 am on Sat, Apr 9, 2011.

    northidahonative Posts: 1164

    RAD, yes I am aware of the faulty and weak building codes regarding building a home on the shore. If those Codes had been strong enough in the first place and had addressed the dangers of erosion and water run off, then we wouldn't, or rather the Lake Property Owners wouldn't be having the problems they have today, If they had built "right" in the first place they wouldn't be whining now.

    Where do you beieve the nutrients that are causing your "eutrification" are coming from RAD? Could they possibly be coming from the run off from private property around the lake that contains high levels of fertilizer, and from leakage from septic systems? My bet is that Obama did it, right. Obama made them build too close to the water, cut down too many trees and natural growth, build too many paved and concrete driveways, decks, too many roofs, in fact too many sources of increased runnoff and instability of the shore itself.

    The Lake has been here for thousands of years, people have been running boats at high speeds up and down the lake for decades, the problem with shoreline erosion and water quality isn't the boat traffic, it's over development and unsound building codes and practices.

    The people of Idaho DO NOT OWN the SHORELINE of Lake Coeur d'Alene, those shorelines are almost all Private property, as a tax payer I am only responsible for the few portions of the non-reservatin portion of the lake that the public still owns. A few boat launches, a few small parks, Tubbs Hill, and a few hundred feet of City Beach.

    If private property owners want to stop the erosion of their property then they should pay for it, if they want the State to do it, then their Property Taxes should be increased to pay for the needed work, not the tax payer. Isn't that the Conservative way, I don't use it, it doesn't effect me directly, so why should I pay for it?

     
  • RadRevD posted at 8:04 pm on Fri, Apr 8, 2011.

    RadRevD Posts: 3333

    NIN...you have no clue regarding the code that prohibits building a home on the shore.
    Look up eutrification...if you can spell it without arriving at a completely different word meaning.

     
  • northidahonative posted at 6:01 pm on Fri, Apr 8, 2011.

    northidahonative Posts: 1164

    You don't pay much attention Joe, but the shorelines of Lake CDA used to belong to the people of Idaho until a court decision gave them to the property owners. Shoreline erosion and water quality are caused by the construction of homes and developments around the Lake not by natural causes. If the water quality is effected and the shorelines eroding, that's the problem of the property owners, the water quality is a liability issue, private property run off, fertalizers, septic tanks, and erosion have cause that quality to decline, again, the property owners did it, they should pay any costs involved in improving water quality, the shoreline could fall into the lake for all I care. To use the old Tea Party mantra, why should I pay for something I don't use? I don't use CDA Lake and haven't since the Court decision, property owners wanted the court to give the the shoreline, they got it, now it's their problem, along with paying for the improvement of water quality and prevention of future damage.''

    Of course you wouldn't understand property owners, at least lake property owners, paying for damage they caused, weren't you against BP having to pay for the damage, cleanup, and lost wages caused by its oil spill?

    Why would anyone who doesn't live on the Lake care if your property fell into the Lake, the shoreline of the lake has changed for thousands of years, construction and development has increased the rate of erosion, not my problem, and not a much of an environmental problem either. Water quality is.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 5:28 pm on Fri, Apr 8, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Native, you crack me up:
    "let the property owners pay for their own shoreline protection, after all they are the ones who used the courts to take away the publics access to most of the lake's shore"

    Ummm....NO.
    The private property owners on Lake Coeurd'Alene, just the same as ALL private property in Idaho, was paid for by private citizens to OWN. They pay ridiculous taxes to own the property, and it is in fact theirs and was NEVER "taken from the government" by anyone.

    "They own the shores of the lake, wouldn't it be Socialist to have the taxpayer foot the bill for protecting private property"?
    As a matter of fact; it would be Socialist to use taxpayer money to protect eroding shoreline on private property. Again, you MISS the point.
    The government in it's infinite wisdom has adotped californiaesque laws regarding shoreline erosion. In this idiotic law/rule, as a property owner, you can NOT do any work on the shoreline to protect against erosion. No one is asking the government to pay for anything, this is all about NOT punishing people for using common sense when it comes to protecting the shoreline.

     
  • RadRevD posted at 11:30 am on Fri, Apr 8, 2011.

    RadRevD Posts: 3333

    why hasn't the report on modeling Lake CDA Eutrification Risk been released and published?
    It was peer-reviewed by OHSU years ago. The focus on remediation of water flowing into Washington became the burden of municipalities and their treated waste water. NO REQUIREMENT OR MEASURING of loading from mega developments of private residences has been established.


    WHY?

     
  • northidahonative posted at 11:15 am on Fri, Apr 8, 2011.

    northidahonative Posts: 1164

    "One thing everyone agrees on: Kootenai County needs to fix its law restricting shoreline ground disturbance"

    Why should anyone other than property owners be concerned with Lake CDA's shorelines, the public does not own the shoreline, at least not any significant portion of it. let the property owners pay for their own shoreline protection, after all they are the ones who used the courts to take away the publics access to most of the lake's shore. They own the shores of the lake, wouldn't it be Socialist to have the taxpayer foot the bill for protecting private property?

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 6:17 am on Fri, Apr 8, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    The current law is dumb.
    If you have a property that is waterfront, you cannot do anything to stop erosion. As a result, when the banks collapse, the nitrogens & any other fertilizers that have been used over decades get dropped into the lake.
    Takeback, as usual you are a mile off base. This has to do with preserving the lake, not destroying it.

     
  • TakeBackTheUSA posted at 5:02 am on Fri, Apr 8, 2011.

    TakeBackTheUSA Posts: 765

    Whenever a political hack says the phrase, "... deemed beneficial to the public" think instead "beneficial to business special interests." With language such as Tondee proposes, Lake Cda will soon only be for those who pay to play.

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks