Bill could chill land-use codes

A bill that gives counties the option of developing comprehensive plans or land-use codes is beginning to boil on the Idaho Legislature’s front burner.

Rep. John Green, R-Rathdrum, who introduced the proposal, said it was prompted by Kootenai County’s land-use code battle several years ago when an out-of-state firm was paid to develop a new code that was ultimately nixed by commissioners amid public outcry.

“My objective with this legislation is to allow commissioners to decide when and on what issues they spend time and tax dollars,” Green said.

“This will give the local county commissioners the ability to listen to their constituents about what level of regulation they think is best.”

The bill passed out of the House’s Local Government Committee last week and will be considered by the full House on Wednesday.

Counties are required to develop comprehensive plans. Green’s bill would make that voluntary.

Green said he believes the land-use planning code is poorly worded, alternating between the words “may” and “shall.” He said the bill would clarify matters.

“Counties don’t understand what they can and can’t do,” he said.

Green said the biggest pushback to the bill has come from cities, which would still be required to develop comprehensive plans.

“They think that counties are just going to stop planning, but of course that’s not true,” he said. “Counties are still going to plan or the commissioners will get (voted out of office).”

Kootenai County Commissioner Chris Fillios, who is also a real estate agent and residential appraiser, said he has concerns about the proposal.

“The county could become wide open for free-for-all development,” he said. “So a residential property owner could find himself or herself facing a commercial, industrial or mining operation. How does this square with our residents’ desire to maintain the rural character of our unincorporated areas?”

However, Commissioner Leslie Duncan said she believes the bill has merit.

“The 44 counties in Idaho vary greatly in size and demographics,” she said. “Any legislation that allows local control over land use or other issues, I would be open to supporting. State mandates can create funding issues for counties, especially those that are smaller and have little tax base.”

Commissioner Bill Brooks said he believes the proposal should be given strong consideration.

“Am I in favor of comprehensive plans? It depends on the plan,” Brooks said. “I think we should and need to plan. But to be straightjacketed into what somebody else believes we should do is not a good idea. I think it’s something the commissioners should decide.”

Rep. Ron Mendive, R-Coeur d’Alene, said he doesn’t have any concerns about the legislation. He said it has generated a lot of buzz, with much of the opposition coming from the Boise area.

“The existing law is confusing, and this gives county commissioners more autonomy,” Mendive said.

Kootenai County Community Development Director David Callahan said that for unpopulated counties, he can see that conducting a comprehensive plan would be an expensive and time-consuming effort that doesn’t necessarily pay for itself.

“On the other hand, we know from many decades of land-use planning that in urbanized areas, planned growth is more desirable and at least as profitable as unplanned growth,” Callahan said.

He said that if the bill goes forward, he hopes there will be discussion of adding population triggers. For example, counties with a certain population would be required to conduct comprehensive planning.

Kootenai County and its residents are no strangers to efforts to reduce government and regulations.

Commissioners last year, on a 2 to 1 vote, decided to implement an opt-out option on the county’s building permit process.

The move drew widespread opinions. The county’s board of commissioners, with Brooks and Duncan recently elected, has scheduled a public hearing on March 28 at 6 p.m. at North Idaho College’s Boswell Hall on whether to nix or maintain the opt-out option.

Opt-out proponents believe the option cuts bureaucracy, while opponents say it opens the door to substandard construction.

Property owners who apply to opt out still are required to meet state requirements for electrical, plumbing and mechanical permits. Panhandle Health District and fire district requirements still apply as well.