COEUR d'ALENE - Most of the panelists at a Tuesday morning forum to discuss Kootenai County's proposed land use code concluded the same thing: It needs work.

A lot of work.

"It's the potato salad that's been sitting out at the picnic too long," said Janet Robnett, a panelist at the meeting. "Just because we bought it doesn't mean we have to eat it."

Robnett is a land use attorney who sat on the county's technical committee to review the proposed Unified Land Use Code as it was developed.

Coeur d'Alene Chamber of Commerce, the Coeur d'Alene Association of Realtors and North Idaho Building Contractors Association hosted the panel discussion at the Salvation Army Kroc Center at 7:30 a.m.

About 200 people attended the event, which was moderated by Jeff Smith, chairman of the Coeur d'Alene Chamber's Public Policy Committee.

"What do you feel is good about where we stand today?" was the first question Smith asked each of the panelists.

It was difficult for most to find a positive answer.

Tom Torgerson, a Realtor and ULUC Advisory Board member, said the format and process the county set up to incorporate the advisory group's comments was a positive thing.

"But it didn't work out that way," Torgerson said, adding most of the comments never made it into the proposal.

Rand Wichman, former county planner and member of the ULUC Technical Committee, said the positive he sees is that people are now starting to get engaged in the process.

"We have a lot of people's attention," he said. "I don't think that most people were involved in the development of the comp plan, but hopefully we get more people involved in this process."

Robnett said the positive thing for her is that "It's not adopted," adding that people are engaged and that hopefully the planning commission can take the information they receive into consideration before adopting the new code.

"The ideas that came up were good," said Linda Fillios, an appraiser and county planning commissioner. "But the advisory group fell apart."

County Commissioner Dan Green said the process to simplify the county's outdated land use codes has been ongoing for six years, and now that it's in the "ninth inning" he hopes they can iron out the issues and come up with a satisfactory code that replaces the subjectivity from the old code with predictability and objectivity in the new code.

Most of the panelists agreed that the ULUC process was designed to simplify the current land use codes, and many of them felt that has not been accomplished yet.

A lot of time was spent discussing the zoning map in the draft proposal, which apparently needs more work.

"The consultant saw that the default (lot size) was 5 acres and said screw that," Robnett said. "And he colored it green instead of yellow."

She was referring to the green color of the "Working Land Large" zone, which requires 40-acre minimum lot size.

Wichman agreed with Robnett saying the map was proposed without properly vetting the new zone changes.

"The map should have some analysis and be ground-truthed before it comes to a hearing," he said, adding that "ground truthing" would make sure that zoning in certain areas makes sense when compared to existing land uses in the area.

He said the whole proposal had more of an urban planning slant in the rural areas it was designed to regulate.

"It's urban oriented," he said. "It deals with stuff we rarely see in the rural areas of the county.

"There is a lot of ink dedicated to urban in the document."

One question asked why the county would eliminate the industrial zone for a lumber mill that has been operating for 80 years in Cataldo.

Green explained that the county is now working to specifically address that issue by possibly allowing anyone with 40 acres that is zoned working lands large to operate a sawmill.

He pointed out that even after the code is adopted the county commissioners will continue to work with residents to fine-tune the law.

"Whatever gets adopted, there will still be more work to be done," Green said.

Wichman said the county may be willing to waive fees and work with residents to resolve their issues, but it will still be very costly for the average citizen because the new code is too complex to understand.

"If someone needs assistance to get those changes made, it is going to cost them thousands of dollars," he said.

He said there are 10 land uses in the current code and the new code has 10 to 12 land uses and one of those uses has nine sub-categories.

To illustrate his point, Wichman pointed out that 95 percent of the land on the south side of the Spokane River is currently zoned agricultural/suburban.

"Under the proposed code that same land has 11 districts in different zones," he said. "We have a level of complexity here that is unnecessary."

Fillios pointed out that the 40-acre minimum lot size in the new "working lands large" zone may need to be addressed as well. She said the average parcel size in Kootenai County is 14.3 acres.

Wichman added that the largest minimum requirement the county has used since 1973 was 20 acres.

Most of the panelists said the document should be gone through again to make it more understandable to the average land owner.

If it isn't, Wichman said, things such as enforcement of the code will be much more burdensome.

"Enforcement is problematic because people can't understand it," he said, explaining most people will not know what they can or cannot do on their property.

Fillios agreed.

"I am overwhelmed. I have read this twice now, and I am overwhelmed," Fillios said. "I don't think we can re-write this."

Smith asked the panelists to discuss what can be done in a short amount of time to get the proposal fixed before the planning commission starts holding hearings on June 17.

Torgerson reiterated that the county had a process that was designed to incorporate public input, but that never transpired.

"The time to make the changes would have been then," he said.

Robnett suggested taking the old code and comparing it to the new code so people could see what changes are being made.

"Then be able to explain why these changes are being made," she said. "It's going to be hard for most people to come in (to the hearing) with anything more than 'I don't get it.'"

Wichman said the county should send the proposal back to county staff or the consultant with a clear direction on how to fix it.

"If the planning commission tries to amend this document, it's going to be a very long slog," he said.

County Commissioner Todd Tondee, who sat in the audience through most of the meeting, said it frustrated him.

"It's frustrating to me that these people have been involved in the process and we are not getting what they wanted into this process," he said.

Green said after the meeting that it was good dialogue and he was glad to see the turnout.

"It was productive, and I am always supportive of people wanting to get involved," he said. "It will be interesting to see what comes forward from the hearings."