Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Let's go ahead and start. I am calling the public hearing for June 25th, 2026 to order at 1 33 PM. We'll call the commissioners Bateson, Foster, James and Bowles are present. Commissioners Harwood, Slater and Summer are absent. Community Development staff in attendance is Community Development Director Mike Beharie, Planning Manager Ben Tarbutton, Administrative Secretary Jocelyn Henning, and Administrative Manager Reva Brittness. Also in attendance is Kootenai County Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Pat Braden, and Deputy Director of Operations is Craig Davidson. Are there any changes to the agenda? Okay, seeing none, no changes were requested. we'll go to approval of the June 11, 2026 minutes. Did everyone have an opportunity to review the minutes? Any changes to minutes? Okay, so motion to approve minutes.

Move to approve minutes.

James? Second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. A conflict of interest. We do have a public hearing today. So are there any commissioners that believe that they have a public conflict of interest with the public hearing topic for today? Seeing none, we will go ahead and go into this. So we do have a public hearing. I will explain the process for those in the audience. I'm going to open the public hearing covering case number. Oh, our eight twenty six dash zero zero zero three for restricted residential setbacks. Community Development Director Mike Beharie and Planning Manager Ben Turbin will provide an overview of the ordinance and answer any questions from the planning commissioners. The hearing will then be open for public comments. Once all comments have been heard, the public hearing will be closed and the planning and zoning commissioners will enter into deliberations and make a decision regarding said ordinance. This public hearing today will address case number ORA26-0003, which covers restricted residential setbacks. On January 3rd, 1973, Kootenai County adopted its first zoning map, establishing a restricted residential zoning district and its associated setback requirements. Many parcels created prior to this adoption of the zoning district do not conform to the current minimum lot size requirements. as a result property owners often face challenges meeting the prescribed setbacks workshops covering this topic have been held with the planning and zoning commission so at this time i will open the public hearing and uh give it over to our directors here yeah thank you manager yeah this ordinance came about as you said in uh as a history that it came about a lot of variances came about

and the staff was directed to look at the code to come up with either an overlay district or to amend the code, and it was opted to look into it, and we opted to go to amend the code and better create an overlay district. So Ben and his team's been working on the code amendment part of it and the details, and I'll pass it over to Ben and finish it.

Yeah. Good afternoon. Ben Tarbutton, planning manager for the record. Yeah, this is, as Director Berry had said, this is a situation that we've been dealing with for years. Regularly, we've come to the Board of County Commissioners through a public hearing format for variance requests that have mostly been what we have been focusing on were areas along Hayden Lake and those in Bayview. And this was a an opportunity for staff to kind of look at this board of county commissioners and express some interest in having staff look at some changes to the code because again these variance requests are routinely applied for and approved by the board and so it seems that the zoning and the setbacks more more specifically is just probably inappropriate for these areas So as Director Beharia said, we have been kind of thinking about different ways of addressing this issue. And what seemed most appropriate to us is looking at the restricted residential zone in its entirety. As I have, I guess the staff has mentioned, there are situations specifically along these waterfront areas where most of the restricted residential zoning is located and in the Bayview area, there are different characteristics or physical characteristics that make it hard for property owners to develop. Whether it be steep slopes or small lots, that's what's prompted these developers or property owners to come forward with a variance request because of those conditions. As a result, staff is proposing two different categories for setback within the restricted residential zone. As you are familiar, the county adopted its first land use and zoning regulations in January 3rd of 1973. And so that's when we established the restricted residential zone and the associated setbacks. However, of course, there are lots that had existed before then. And so there are parcels that are conforming with regards to the land use code. However, they do not comply with that minimum lot size of 8,250 square feet. So that is essentially one category within this request. This is parcels created prior to January 3rd of 1973 that are less than 8,250 square feet in size. I have on screen, I believe you have it in front of you as well, that they will be held to the following, oops. Okay. They would be held to these standards here, which would be a front yard setback of 10 feet. A side yard setback of 5 feet with an alleyway also with 5 feet. A rear yard setback of 5 feet and a planking street of 5 feet. Now, I may just want to sorry back up just a touch and say that what is currently in the ordinance. is 25 feet from the front yard setback, 10 feet from the side, six feet from the side with an alley, 25 feet from the rear, and 15 feet with a planking street. So that would be one category. The other category, of course, would be parcels that are just greater than 8,250 square feet. The setbacks are a little bit greater in length. And so you'll see there that they would be 10 feet from the front, eight feet from the sides, five feet from the side with an alley, 10 feet from the rear, and 10 feet with a blanket street. So in addition to that, in this ordinance amendment, or this proposed ordinance amendment, there is kind of a housekeeping measure in which we are addressing the setback requirements for stairways, walkways, and stairway landings. Currently, there is a side yard setback requirement of five feet. Not too long ago, staff had and was, the amendment was approved to allow a different relief for trams. I had Eve's, I was reading Eve's here at the moment, so I had that in my mind, I apologize. So for trams, The code was changed, and here, as you can see, it shows a zero foot side yard setback or front and rear yard setback. And that's really meant to allow for property owners to coordinate and share access for some of those steeper bots. Well, the same logic really applies to stairways, walkways, and stairway landings. And so again, we believe it's more of a housekeeping measure to kind of address that setback standard as well. At this point, we have not received any public comments with regards to the proposed change. And so I don't know that staff has anything else to add at this time. And we'd be happy to answer any questions should you have any.

Any questions? I guess the answer, but you're gonna know it, is what was or is the purpose of these setbacks? And is the purpose of the setbacks being frustrated by changing up? I mean, you have setbacks because you need room for more power and stuff like that. So those were two questions. What was the reason for the setbacks in the first place? And are those reasons being frustrated at all kind of things that may have been removed or setback?

Yeah, certainly be welcome to have other staff chime in as well. But I think typically the reason for setbacks for public health and safety reasons, fire, making sure that fires aren't spreading from structure to structure. As well as uniformity for neighborhoods. And I think that's part of some of the intent of setbacks in general.

Have the fire chiefs expressed any concern? I mean, it sounds like the rules are already being broken, right? It is what it is. It's sort of a bull catching up with reality. But have the fire chiefs made any comment on that?

We haven't had any concerns from the fire chiefs or fire districts. Any building permit is required to comply with the building code, which does address those concerns as well. But we also include the fire district with our building permits with the variance requests. And I cannot recall an instance in which any of the fire districts have had any oppositions to those requests.

Any other questions.

my only thing was i mentioned it earlier is um about sewer septic systems on these small acreages right against the lake and stuff is there i'm assuming that water sewer districts are taking care of that so that it is not a problem yeah and yeah septic is is something that is needing to be addressed

But whether or not there's a variance request or a change to the setback standards is not so applicable. Because I mean, whether or not you have, whatever the setback may be, they're still gonna have to to meet the standards for septic, whether it be associated sewer district or a subsurface sewage disposal system regulated by Panama Health District. So yeah, they still will be responsible for complying with those standards.

And that's all handled by Panama Health District?

That or the applicable sewer district, if there is one. And 1 of the questions, maybe I'll just offer it. Uh, that the commissioner goals had earlier for me was, you know, about how many variances are we. Seen on a regular basis, and, you know, we, we looked at a couple years this year so far. We're only halfway through the year, I guess, but we've only seen 4 applications for variance requests. Last year we had 19 variance requests, but I would say about 75% of those were within the restricted residential zone, and that's kind of a loose figure. But I would say it's typical we get about 10 to 15-ish a year for variance requests in the restricted residential zone.

And if Madam Chair and Commissioners Papere and the civil deputy prosecuted for the record, if I could also offer that when variances have been granted in these areas, it's often because it's to limit potential environmental damage from excavation used typically towards the back of a property, especially one that's steeply sloped and close to a lake. I'm thinking primarily Hayden Lake, but there's some along Coeur d'Alene Lake as well that fit that description. And so I think limiting you know, potential environmental damage in those cases is another justification for smaller setbacks in this particular zone. Thank you, Pat.

Thank you. Okay, third time. Any other questions? No? All right. At this point then, I will... open it up to public comments. We do have one here. And you will be given three minutes for your comment. And this is Cameron. He's in favor, may wish to speak.

Yeah, hi. Thanks for hearing. I guess I would lobby for less restriction. So could we maybe raise the parcel banner to a quarter acre? I don't know, 12,500 square feet, potentially, or, you know, so that would probably be my only thing, is how can we make that 8 feet, 5 feet sidewalk setbacks. Most of them are similar in the size there, 10 feet, 10 feet, 5 feet, 5 feet. So less restriction on these challenging lots. maybe one side you can, maybe one side you can't. So if the idea is to kind of improve development in these areas, less restriction, maybe increasing the square footage on the first category there. But other than that, I'm in approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody on the phone? Oh, no. Sure. Is anybody chiming in on the phone? It doesn't look like it. No? OK. OK. Before I go on, excuse me. Ben, would you get Luke's name in front of him?

So, Ben, do you have an answer to that question, why they're different?

What I understood to be the comment from Mr. DeFora is two things, I think. One, it sounded as if he would be in favor or proposing the idea to increase this lot size Parcels that are greater than 8,000, excuse me, parcels that are greater than 12,500 square feet would have this standards apply. And if it'd be less than 12,500 square feet, I would assume even that these standards would apply. You know, I think the reason that we proposed what we did is keeping in mind The smaller lot sizes that existed before 73 means a little bit more flexibility in their setback regulations. And so if parcels were created after 73, typically we don't see a lot of side yard variance requests. Because most often the slope is kind of running, you know, perpendicular, I guess it would be to the water. And so it's mostly that we're seeing setback request from front and rear rather than sides because they need to demonstrate that there's some kind of undue hardship with the characteristics of the site. And typically, it's not a thin or narrow lot issue. It's typically, we've got some steep slopes here. We need to be closer to the road. Otherwise, as Pat has said, there's just going to be more disturbance in that hillside. So we're certainly welcome to, you know, any ideas that the Planning Commission has on that, but that's the reason that we have proposed AP, which is still a relief from the 10-foot side here at CEPAC, but that's why we proposed it as AP.

Okay, all right well with no other comments I will go ahead and close. Public comment, so if I could have a motion to close. I move to close public comment. Thank you. And a second? Aye. Commissioner Bowles?

Aye.

Commissioner Sommer?

Aye. Commissioner Foster?

Aye. Commissioner James?

Aye. Chair Bates?

Aye. All right, so I will now open deliberations on ORA 26-0003 to Planning and Zoning Commissioners. Questions, concerns? Anything at all? Okay. Well, then I would entertain a motion to either approve, amend, or oppose ORA 26-0003.

I'd make a motion to approve.

Okay.

Second.

Commissioner Bowles?

Aye.

Commissioner Sommer? Aye. Commissioner Foster?

Aye.

Commissioner James?

Aye.

Chair Bateson? Aye.

Okay, motion passes. Well, with that, then I will close, adjourn our public hearing portion without objection. All right, so our public hearing is now closed at 1.52. And now I will open the planning and zoning workshop for June 25th, 2026. And in attendance, for the workshop, we have commissioners Bateson, Foster, James, Summer, and Wohls. Community development staff are Development Director Mike Beharie, Planning Manager Ben Tarbutt, Administrative Secretary Jocelyn Henning, and Administrative Manager Reba Greatness. Also in attendance is Creepy County Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Pat Braden and Deputy Director of Operations Craig Davidson. And we also have Erin Qualls from SCJ Alliance who will be giving us an update on the comprehensive plan and possibly going over potential goals and policies. The floor is yours, Mr. Qualls.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh yeah, Madam Chair. I believe in your packet, we received a memo, kind of a reiteration of vision, goals, policies, overall structure of the comp plan. We created a draft vision statement we'd love to pull up and get your feedback on. And following that, we've started some goals and policies work based off some timely input from the occupier district as kind of a starting point to kind of really look at the format of goals, objectives, policies, and actions. They provided some feedback and we kind of retuned it in order to maybe fit into a revised policy framework. So first, I thought we could start and look at the overall vision statement. That's kind of your anchor, you know, boilerplate elevator pitch statement from which all goals and policies essentially derive. And of course, you know, this is kind of just the very beginning. We're still in our engagement phase. And we thought we'd tee you up for the real work ahead, which is going to be goals, policies, future land uses, and how that ultimately informs regulations, zoning districts, setbacks, et cetera. So with that, feel free to interrupt at any time. This is kind of meant as a back and forth workshop. I'll go ahead and bring up that memo.

I'm curious, do we have a copy of that? A physical copy? Yeah, we can print one out. Well, we don't need to.

I mean, we can see it off screen. That's fine. So you've seen a lot of this before. It's just kind of meant as a bit of a refresher, the overall structure of a comp plan, digital policies, certainly other critical components that warrants a lot of consideration and debate, frankly, is future land uses, which ultimately or typically informs zoning districts. That said, in Idaho, it's really the policies by which zoning must be in accordance with and not necessarily exactly the future land use map, according to legal precedent. But they're still very critical as a legal basis for any new or revised regulations. and actions. And of course, actions can take a long time. They can take the 20 years of the time frame from which a comp plan typically is the horizon, the typical horizon of a plan. It can take many forms. So here's just a starting point. Again, we're dipping our toes. And we wanted your input on this. see if we're on track or what's missing as community leaders and those probably lived here a long time we want to make sure it reflects what we've heard from the public what we've heard from you this was derived a lot from the uh from the visioning exercises we did with you and the border county commissioners and also the engagement feedback we received thus far through the surveys and our in-person our first in-person event

And a comment. Looking through this and looking at your plan, there is clearly a great emphasis on private property rights and the ability to expand those rights to the maximum extent possible. What's missing, and I don't disagree with that, but I mean, I got a farm. I like people telling me what I can do on my farm, right? But what's missing is often missing in this discussion. is equal emphasis on the respect of others' property rights and the community's rights. What I'm getting at is the concept of liberty and freedom that's fundamental in our country, that we want to maximize our liberties and freedoms to a point, but not over the point where we start to infringe upon others' liberties and freedoms. And often I think it's looked up, that whole concept is looked at more myopically where from the point of view of my freedom to liberties, and I am blind to your freedom and liberties. And that's where the tension is. That's where really the, where the road meets the road. And what everything we're doing here is really, I think, designed to address that tension of how far can we expand those rights without them infringing upon the society. The gentleman just came up and asked us to add for greater distances and stuff. He asked to change it. Well, we didn't. Well, why? Because I think we're probably sitting here thinking that Ben and his folks know what they're doing, and they have those setbacks for a reason. And the reason is for protection of society, to prevent fires, that kind of thing. So that's an example of this balance we try to strike. And what I'm advocating here is maybe a little more language, even in the general aspirational language, that recognizes that, yes, we expand those freedoms as much as we can, but we don't expand them to the point where they fringed upon others and the community's rights. And you can debate all day long of where that line is, but that's the concept, I think, that we're really trying to get at. And if I'm wrong, somebody, and I know Pat will tell me if I'm wrong, but if I'm wrong, somebody needs to tell me, because I think that's really what we're doing. And if you want, I can, you know, draw some language. You know, not today, but I can do something if you want.

But that's the concept of traffic. I'm not going to try to draft something right now. That's OK, unless you have prepared language. But something that we can kind of mingle on.

Yeah, you could prepare something for myself, and I could . What's that? You could email it to myself. OK. And then I could, if you have any draft language that you're proposing.

I mean, I see this often. and try to maybe create a homeowner's association. And this debate comes up every time, that people like, I want my property rights. But then they start to recognize at some point, well, your property rights might have .

Did I capture this? This comments? OK.

I would say you must also recognize the property rights of others. Yeah. And the rights.

I would kind of balance it the same way. The freedom of property rights are important, should be emphasized. Maybe this way. Individual freedom of property rights are important, should be emphasized. But they should not infringe upon others' property rights or the rights of the community as a whole, something like that.

it's kind of like the problem with the old english commons you know they took their sheep out there and started to graze them and eventually they grazed the grass away that nobody could use you know 20 years from now this is going to probably all change anyhow because i mean we look at all the different people moving in from everywhere else that all have different thoughts on what we should and shouldn't do. I don't think it's going to be a permanent thing we're doing right now.

Yeah, and our comp plan time range is 20 to 25 years. So the new team and new people at that time will be able to make a new vision statement if anything's changed. But for now, I think this would be a good base.

really growing issue because, and we've seen it where, for example, we had the hearing on the data centers. Remember that? I was blown away. All these people who came in, and I almost expected there would be a group getting up and saying, you shouldn't curtail my property rights, but I want to sell my acres to a data center. Didn't hear any of that. They're all there saying, no, we don't want that. You've got to stop this. You've got to stop that property right, right? And so we're getting more and more of that. And I have noticed in the years I've been here on the committee, we're just seeing more and more of that realization that, holy heck, you're affecting my rights. We had another one where I remember they were debating. It was view, that you don't have a property right in your view. And we had people up complaining about, I forget the issue, but their view was being disrupted. And that's really changed, because when I was first on this, you know, here on the committee, it was more, you know, we need to not restrict our property rights. Now it's, we're getting more of a balanced argument back and forth.

Thank you, that's a really useful comment. Do you think, though, that that may be more associated with changing cultural influence, though? Whereas in the past, the community was more individual property rights focused. And now we have the community is changing. There are more people coming in. And they're also wanting to preserve the places they moved to to get away from the places they came from. And so what you're having is a lot of, in the case of the data center, which I wasn't on the commission at that time. But in the case of the data center, you have a whole bunch of people who are very, very concerned about that. But the data center, is the question individual private property rights versus private property rights in commercial or development or future development? in that way? Are we talking about Jill Farmer up on the hill who wants to do a thing on his hill versus a data center petitioning a VISTA for water rights or electricity rights or whatever? Is there a difference?

Yeah, no, I mean, I think you're really hitting on a lot of the core issues there. And I can use this word because I was born in California. You have the Californication word, you know, that I left California because I didn't want all that. All that included, you know, paved from, you know, everything's paved, too many cars, too many people, you know, you can't, and all that. But all of that also includes regulations. I didn't want to be regulated so much. So I come up to Idaho. So it's sort of a mixed bag. But I think you're hitting on the right issues. I don't, I think... Well, each case has its distinguishing factors and arguments as to where this line is between the individual property rights versus the effect on other individuals or the community. I think we see it at all levels, both commercial and individual. I'll give you an example. We had that, remember that issue we had where they were putting in like a trailer park, or they didn't tell us what they're putting in, but they wanted to use their property and get a exemption or whatever you call it, where they could build, and they were gonna originally put a trailer park in, and it was this parcel down towards Fighting Creek, right? It was right across the store from the store in Fighting Creek.

Yeah, what's that?

Elder Road, yeah, it's on Elder Road. Elder Road, yeah, it's the corner of 95 and Elder, yeah. And they're in front of us asking to be, what do you call it, path exemption from the zoning. And one of the neighbors, the guy right next door, came in and testified. And this is an example of the individual property. He came in next door and he said, OK, wait a minute. If you put a big facility in there and you sink a well, I'm going to lose my water. And he said, I already lost my water because I had a neighbor move in, sunk a well, hit my cone of depression, and my water, my whatever, 10 gallons a minute went down to two. And he said, if you have a big facility that goes in there, because it's on a lower parcel than his, it's going to suck all my water out. I don't have any water. And so that ultimately was passed. I voted against it, but it passed. And we'll see. He may lose his water. And that's a good example of you're granting expansive property rights to one group, and that was commercial use, and you're taking a really critical property right away from an individual because they lose their water, their property's worthless. And so I think we're seeing practical concerns like that. We're seeing the other one that you hit on. I think that's really a pregnant issue. And that came out of the data center, for example. A lot of people got up and said, hey, I moved here to Idaho because I like the outdoors. I like the beauty. And we have one guy who seemed to be an expert on this get up and talk about how data centers not only suck up a bunch of water, which we have the aquifer people are upset about that, but they also give off I don't know what it was, radio waves or something that affects the animals, you know, and it affects the biosphere. He's pretty persuasive. And a lot of people are nodding their head and saying, yeah, we don't want that to happen, you know. We love the beauty of Norvido. So I think you accurately, and it was well said, hit on all of those issues. And I think they're all in this mix that we're seeing.

and to the extent we need to you know affect the the comprehensive plan to you know sort of address that these are issues that we've got to deal with and balance how to deal with them i think that's important and i think like that data center that um a lot of the people were came out and were concerned very concerned about the aquifer that they want as much water as they take how much water they're taking from the aquifer but also how they're regenerating their water putting it back in when it's done and what it does to the soil and the air contamination and more people i think you hit on that too the more people you have

The tougher guess, right?

Well, yeah, and certainly the more potential for conflicts of matters of freedom. And so do you think that by adding wording into the vision statement that actually specifically says something to the effect of, So second sentence, through thoughtful planning, responsible stewardship, and respect for private property rights, the county will guide growth in a manner that preserves rural character, et cetera, et cetera, but should not infringe on the rights of others. So by specifically stating that, are you introducing a sort of an unknown variable into the statement that sort of opens the door for virtually any kind of subjective criteria. So for somebody to say, well, the guy down the street is putting a second story on his house, and that's going to affect me because of this reason and that reason. Like, where is the county going to be put into a position to start having to be the arbitrator of every single little thing by introducing that type of specific statement? Whereas it could just be covered under thoughtful planning, responsible stewardship, and respect for private property rights. That, to me, that section of the sentence, to me, includes the property owner and the property rights of neighbors or adjacent owners.

Yeah, you can read it that way, but my concern and it may not be about the serpent But my concern is that we hear over and over again private property rights private property rights and when you hear that I Submit that usually the speakers talk about my rights and sure and they're not acknowledging on my rights Stop when I when I start infringing on your rights and they stop not only there, but they stop when they infringe upon the rights of the community. Mike and Ben and their group and Pat and all of us, we are essentially in a position where we have to arbitrate between those, where that line is, and that's what I'm getting at, between private property rights, public property rights, public rights, and individual rights. Take, for example, you know, you have that building, you're saying, and it blocks someone's view. Well, you know, under the law, there's really, they can still do it. You know, you don't have a right, a legal right to your view. Well, maybe we pass a law, at some point you do, because that becomes a more and more, a bigger issue because we have taller buildings going in. that are blocking views all over the city and all over the town. So that may become an issue. And so you draw a line at some point. The data center, where he said, you can't sell your property and have a data center. Well, that's really curtailing property rights quite a bit. That's taking away a fungible ability to sell your property for a data center. And actually, there, I advocated, say you can't do it because that could be attacked legally, just like those cases where they say you can't have a porn shop anywhere in town. Well, you do that, and they're going to sue and win because they have a constitutional right to operate their business, even if you don't like the business. I don't want them, but it's a legal activity, right? Same with data centers. So that decision can get challenged. But I think, to get back to the point, I think what I'm advocating to get a more balanced verbiage in there that recognizes that private property rights butt up. They only expand so far. And to get away from this reiteration over and over and over, private property rights, people think of as I have a right, I have a right, I have a right. At some point we don't have a right. I don't have a right to, you know, I think I shouldn't have a right to take your water, for example, that example that I had. I don't think I should have a right to, out of my way, one of the problems we had is, you know, they were putting in more and more, you know, lots really without much control. I don't think I have a right to put my suit in court. I think that's wrong. And there's legal arguments for it and all that. But I think that's what I'm getting at, is we need to have an emphasis on, that balanced emphasis on both sides of it.

I would just warn against being maybe overly specific to the point of, in the example of, if your neighbor sings well, next door to you, and let's say you had 10 gallons per minute, and you just went down to eight. At what point is there a problem?

Well, I think the comprehensive plan, we are general. This is general language, right? Aspirational and general. And there'll be some specificity, but where we get into that kind of specificity is in these hearings and when we pass the regulations. That's where I think we're going to be getting into that. And then there's debate both sides there, right? If that issue came up, you might say two is too much, and I might say, well, that's not much at all, and then we have to draw the line somewhat. But that's, I think, what we do on a day-to-day basis.

And so, yeah, we start with broad, and as we go move through the process, we get to more specifics, the policies.

But to your point, I think also what I'm advocating too is, and we have to do it with them, Stephanie, is there is a cultural shift going on. That's what I'm seeing. I'm seeing a cultural shift of, you know, we're the flak catchers, right? We're the ones that catch all the flak before it gets to the commissioners on these property issues, right? And I've been seeing this transition, the cultural transition from, you know, these really loud voices for expansive individual property rights that at times ignore their negative effect on others or the community. Now I'm seeing this more shift the other way, where, not the other way, but it's getting more balanced where people are getting up and saying, wait a minute, not my backyard, okay, we did it before. It's a good one, you know, for that. That's a community issue, a huge issue for the entire community of the county. And now we're seeing, we didn't see so much people getting up and saying, hey, wait a minute, you've got to pay attention to soccer. It could be, you know, detrimental to everybody. Now we're seeing a real loud voice there, which is like a program. So I think what I'm also advocating is acknowledging this cultural shift. Does it make sense?

Absolutely. Absolutely. And this is your community vision. So maybe it'd be helpful if we were, I threw some lane just as I was listening, just threw a, without trying to make it too lengthy. It's sometimes helpful to read this stuff aloud. If you don't mind, Chair, Yes, please. Okay. Cooney County will remain a place where people can enjoy the freedom, beauty, and opportunities that define their vital. Through thoughtful planning, responsible stewardship, and respect for both private property rights and the rights of the community as a whole, the county will guide growth in a manner that preserves its rural character, protects its lakes, rivers, forests, and open spaces, and maintains safe, vibrant, and connected communities. As the county grows, infrastructure, housing, transportation, recreation, and public services will be developed in step with community needs, ensuring a high quality of life for current and future generations. Goodman County will foster a resilient economy, support agriculture and natural resource industries, expand recreational opportunities, and remain a safe and welcoming place to live or visit. And you know,

So I'm wary of the type of language that makes statements as the community as a whole. Because again, that's a subjective kind of place where the good of the community can be used to squash somebody who is not going along with the community. So, you know, we've seen a number of those types of things in the past. And so, again, I would be wary of that type of language when, in my opinion, I don't think it's actually necessary. Um, if if the statement stands on its own as through thoughtful planning, responsible stewardship and respect for private property rights, the county will guide, you know, et cetera. In my opinion, that that statement there covers the individual private property owner. It also covers the individual private property owners who are neighbors who are community members. Um, it's just. it's just a general generalized statement that the county is going to respect respect private property rights that includes the private property rights of nearby neighbors of the community as a whole but actually having it in in black and white or saying that the rights of the community as a whole are in consideration here well now okay who's who's deciding what the rights of the, do we have, do communities actually have rights? And if so, who determines what those rights are? We certainly understand that individuals have rights. But, so I'm just, again, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I'm just, It's good to be country. What's that? It's good to be country.

It fosters debate. I foster. Well, my friend and I illustrate this because the reason he feels uncomfortable with that language is exactly what I want to hear. Because I do believe the community has rights. The aquifer is a great example of it. And I do believe we should have language, and I can be voted out and I'm fine with it, but I do believe we should have an emphasis on both sides, that balances. Because I do think the community's rights need to be acknowledged and protected. Again, the octopus, or sewage in the lake is probably a good example. In the past, the mining operations that didn't recognize future generations had rights, or would have rights at some point, that could be extinguished by dumping heavy metals into the ocean. The environment, you know, it's another example of disregard for others' rights, including future rights which are an issue here. You know, future people coming to county for kids and all that. So the reason you're uncomfortable with it is exactly why I want it there, because I want it to be up-sized. I want people to recognize that. And if I voted out and Andrew believes, well, community really doesn't have rights and all that, I'm okay with it. I mean, I'm not okay with it, but I totally respect it. But that's where it comes from.

Yes. I agree with Commissioner James, and it's a draft. So let's leave it in there because it helps my memory. But every organization, including this one here, has individual rights. We're all notified of the meetings. We all have individual rights as commissioners, as does the community. But we also have collective rights. I have as an individual can't override the rights of the community as a whole, as you're talking about with pollution. And so I think it's important that that's kept in basic organization and principles.

I think the other thing that we have to remember is we're doing this for the county and we have no say on what the cities are going to do when they bring everybody else into their city use all their rules. And all the cities have different thoughts on what to do. Build, build, build, or look at the prairie and see if they're going to do something and help it out instead of just clutter it up.

Well, this is the tip of the iceberg, right, as a vision statement. It's a visible tip, as any iceberg tip is, I suppose. I did take another practice based on what I was hearing for the rights of all. Keep in mind that, you know, the comp plan must have a property rights element to it. It's a required element in the comp plan.

Sorry, hang on just a second, Aaron. I don't know why it disconnected. Call it in real quick. As far as interruptions go, that wasn't so bad.

The other thing I'm thinking, maybe bring forth a couple different vision statements that we can look at both sides, a couple and see what they say.

if there's two different, you know, you can combine them or whatever.

What is the projected date that we should be finished with this part?

I don't have a set date for the vision statement. I was hoping to kind of dive into, dip our toes into goals and policies about the aquifer. It's a nice kind of foreshadowing we heard earlier. So we can certainly come back to this. What's most critical in terms of, you know, and Pat can weigh in here, but in terms of the legal basis for actually doing things is the policies and the actions. They all want to, you know, it's good for them to, you know, this is kind of your anchor going back, you know, to, is this policy that's derived from this objective, that's derived from this goal, Does it align with the vision? And it might be a good exercise to kind of look at the first goal that we've come up with, based on, and it was easy to do, because theographer gave us some goals and objectives, and we kind of retuned them. And I'd be happy to talk about that just a little bit, so you can see what's ahead, and see how the vision may relate to you know, actual policy statements that you're more strictly held to, right, as you make decisions on development and, you know, development applications, or as staff makes decisions, or as you make decisions on new regulations, which is, you know, going to be a lot of the implementation efforts of the plan. having gone through vision statements many, many times throughout my career, this is one of those things when you get into policies and those kinds of things, you start to get to the finite level of definitions and things like that, it will change as you go because it'll become much clearer to you what you want to see in your vision statement.

So just keep that in mind.

Yeah, and I guess to Perry's point that the date from which we want this completed is the date of adoption. is that 26 27 what do you think i'm just looking for a general idea yeah we're projecting uh early in 2027 yeah well now i've got a goal we get through that sooner all the better um okay so um as you may recall So we did this policy analysis, this is what your existing in the table here. This is what your existing plan has for goals, objectives, and policies. This was our analysis of it, and this occurred, gosh, some time back. Yeah, well, it's now far away. It was last year, I want to say, last year, maybe the year before. Up above here is what Idaho code says about the natural resources elements, and that's where I thought would be a good place to start. Natural resources includes considerations of the lake, which we've had a lot of conversation about for our existing conditions analysis. Also the aquifer, which has come up quite a bit. So we thought natural resources, that element, and the relevant goals and policies to it might be a good place to start. And I thought I would just kind of bring this up as just kind of a refresher, and you can review this later. We can resend just the analysis we did some time back. not really suggesting any new policies or objectives, but just kind of looking at the structure of them and whether or not they really, you know, does it read like a goal? Does it read like an objective? Is it redundant to other areas of the plan? Is it conflicting with other, you know, goals and policies? So we don't have to go through this in detail, but this was some kind of the background to what you currently have. in your natural resources section of the current adopted conference plan. So that's just kind of a prelude to this memo, which we received from the aquifer district. The goal is simply protect water quality of the Rathbun Prairie Aquifer. Within that, they have three different objectives and suggested policies. or sorry, four different objectives and suggested policies. We took this language, Mike and I, and we kind of recrafted it to be better aligned with our, you know, what a goal, objective, policy, and action would be. Because some of those read more like actions, things to actually do to implement an objective to help implement a goal. for example, and we bring up what we came up with. Again, this is in our codes. We have so far drafted one goal, as it pertains to the aquifer, given that we had that. So simply protect the water quality of Rathland Prairie Aquifer to ensure a safe, sustainable, resilient groundwater resource for current and future generations. First objective. So we kind of teased out objectives policies and actions and we looked at it from the eye of is it realistic is it you know feasible both politically and for you know what are we committing ourselves to right given that the district is kind of a separate entity but it's a very important aspect of Kootenai County to consider for the comprehensive plan and may guide future regulations and development review. So this is kind of how we took the input from the aquifer district and kind of crafted into sort of a test framework for you to consider. We can we can workshop this further and maybe this is it's got several different objectives. We don't necessarily have to go through it word by word today, but we certainly. Again, spend some time on it if you like. And apologies, we didn't have this in the packet before the meeting today. But at the very least, this is kind of our overall structure. So I'll just read the objectives of this goal. Maintain the strength of regulatory monitoring and management programs that prevent degradation of aquifer water quality. Objective two, protect sensitive aquifer recharge areas, which have recently been identified and mapped by the Aquifer District. So that's kind of a new sub-element, I guess, if you will, to the aquifer that we want to reflect in the comprehensive plan. Through science-based and light-use planning and resource management strategies. Third objective, increase public awareness, understanding, and stewardship of groundwater resource and aquifer protection practices. And four, maintain and encourage land use patterns, preserve groundwater recharge functions, and protect water quality within the Rathland Prairie Aquifer and sensitive aquifer recharge areas. So there's the four objectives to keep you going. I have a question. Yes.

I don't know if it's appropriate to put it here, but I'll introduce the concept. Would it be appropriate, and maybe you do have language that addresses Because ultimately, these policies are going to boil down to rules that we create, right? People need to follow. And the rules are worthless unless you have an enforcement, you know, a policy for enforcement that ultimately comes down to something. I don't know if you need it or it's appropriate, but what comes to mind is, you know, if we don't have it, it might be good to have some language about, you know, the county shall take action to enforce the protection of water or that kind of thing. I mean, the language about educating the community and all that, that's all nice, good, and sloppy, and it makes everybody happy. Nobody likes to hear enforcement. But the reality is you need it. Otherwise, people are going to be driving 100 miles an hour all the time and crashing. You don't have rules on that enforcement.

Right. so if you notice here in the first set of policies in support of objective one if they all begin with the county shall now that does imply enforcement too of course and then the actions below are really how we're going to how we're going to the actions are intended to you know they are in concert with the policies in order to fulfill an objective, right? And really, another required element of a comprehensive plan is the implementation section. These actions here are part, would be part of that implementation section of your plan.

So yeah, we have continued financial support, okay? Maintain countable once it's destroyed, the exception of the ground loads have been utilized. You know, I would put another bullet point there, say, and shall enforce all the above, you know? that concept, because I mean, we're talking aspirational crime, big picture, but I think enforcement is an important big picture item. Pat, do you disagree on your point?

No, I totally agree. I'm part of that enforcement, to be honest. Isn't that already incorporated? you know, wouldn't hurt. I mean, you could put enforcement after every, you know, under actions for every single, you know, every single goal and objective. But I think with these, I think, you know, protecting the aquifer, protecting the lakes and rivers is probably, you know, important enough to have enforcement as a, you know, an additional bullet point under actions. My question, Erin, you mentioned you put the county shall under all these policies. My slight quibble with that is it seems like the county's mandating these things, and it sounds like a mandate on the county, and I think maybe will might be a better word, just for a while. Because I know that came up in the 2010 plan discussion as well. Yeah, the concept again is the county is imposing on itself, right?

Right, right. It's not someone imposing it on the county. You can even have it in general language. Yeah.

The county is. I like will better. Yeah. It's still expressing intent, but it's not . Right. Very good.

Would we be able to get a copy of this? Yeah, absolutely.

That would be great.

Again, I'm sorry we didn't have freedom to review before this meeting. I'm sorry I have to leave in about five minutes. I have another meeting at 3.

If you can give it out in words, then we'd be able to. Yeah, changes and show you. I think that would be great, as long as we're not replying all, right?

Yes, please do not get that. Just reply to me, and I'll get it to where it needs to go. Well, I think it's a great start.

OK. Yeah. Alright, very good. So we might be bringing some at the next round here. We might start talking about the lake. Your existing policy framework has a lot of stuff about the aquifer plan. It doesn't have too much about Lake Coeur d'Alene or the other lakes in the county. And so that might be a new area for us, kind of based off of our framework here. It might be OK to go forward with the lake as part of that natural resource development.

Are you getting a contribution in working with the tribe on this?

Funny you should ask. I'm meeting with the tribe tomorrow. Yes, the existing conditions of course incorporate quite a bit of information about the lake that will be derived in order to create policies. Not all of you maybe were there for those previous meetings when we had a few come and present about their efforts around the lake and the known issues with contamination and the efforts that have been done so far. But that's kind of how we build data and input into goals, objectives, policies, and actions.

No, honestly, it's good because, I mean, the county and the tribe is, by and large, I think, got along pretty well. And I think the more communication, the better.

Okay, very good, now that's good input as I, before I speak. Okay, we'll send this off, and if there's any other questions. Oh, we did have some kind of exciting news here. We launched another, what did you share? This is where we're at with our survey results as of today. We have almost 2,000 respondents to our survey. We sent out another email the other day, so that's pretty good. We had close to 1,000 maybe a week ago, and another email last, got us a few hundred more at least. That one closed on Monday, right? It hasn't closed. You know, we decided to extend it. Good question. We decided to extend it to June 30th so we could get another email out at no additional cost, frankly. And so far it's been successful. So we thought running it until the end of the month would be appropriate to close it and also give the opportunity for us to do other outreach efforts. I believe Ben's been out delivering flyers, or someone has been. This and other staff, yeah. Around town following feedback from the Parks and Waterways Commission suggested some areas high traffic and families and kids You know, we were fishing in In order to try to get some more, you know broader demographic So when will the second one then start the second survey Not until July Not until we have some future land use scenarios that you're comfortable presenting to the community.

So potentially even later, August, September, October.

Yeah, probably towards the fall. Perfect. Targeted. Give us plenty of time to get through goals and policies. And then the big in July, future land use, which informs future zoning. Great.

Any other questions for Aaron? Any other directions or points that you would like to have him look at specifically? And we'll just keep on plugging along.

Any input at any time is welcome, as long as it's not a reply all to the other commissioner. But either going to the chair or just directly to staff, I think it's just up to Aaron.

Okay, well, with that, just quickly, we tentatively talked about a July workshop. Is that still being kicked around? The end of July?

Could you have anything, Ben, on that?

I don't have anything currently on the agenda. We have a date for the 20th, July 23rd.

Right.

I don't know if that's, I think nothing's scheduled for that at the moment, but...

Okay. So just kind of keep it open on our calendars and then if we don't need it, we don't have it, but if we need it, then we're good?

That's at 1 30?

Because potentially it could be this or it could be some other issue that we might want to delve into.

Yeah, let's say keep it open. Okay. I have a, I do have a meeting at 2.30 that day. Okay. But we made some other items. Right. To bring forward. So if we just keep it open, that would be great.

I think the summer's busy. If we can get the word out beforehand, people can work around that rather than last minute trying to make sure people are available. Does that work for you ladies? Yes. Okay. All right. And I'll send out a reminder on that. Any other announcements? All right. Well, with that, without objection, I will close our workshop at 2.42. Adjourned. Thank you, everybody.