COEUR d’ALENE — Coeur d’Alene and the Idaho Department of Lands are opposing an application for a dock near City Beach.

City attorney Mike Gridley said the dock would be inside the city’s designated swimming area in Lake Coeur d’Alene, which extends from the Independence Point steps to Hubbard Avenue at North Idaho College.

“It is a designated swimming area under our city code,” he said.

The city filed its opposition to the application with the state Board of Land Commissioners on Thursday.

“The designated swimming area includes the waterfront at City Park that is host to over 100,000 citizens from June through September each year. Each year over 2,600 Ironman and triathlon competitors train and compete in this part of Lake Coeur d’Alene,” Gridley wrote. “Subjecting these athletes, children and other citizens to the risk of gruesome propeller injuries or boat related injuries would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Lake Protection Act and the greater public good."

The code doesn’t specifically prohibit docks, but Gridley said, “the problem is a dock would encourage a boat.”

“It is an encroachment we believe would encourage boat traffic,” he said.

The Land Board will hold a hearing on the dock application Thursday, March 10. It is not open to the public, and public input on the application is not being sought.

The dock applicant is Justin Sternberg. When contacted by phone, he referred The Press to his attorney, Jonathan Frantz, who could not be reached for comment.

According to the application filed Jan. 19 with IDL, the dock would extend about 75 feet beyond the ordinary high water mark and has 78 feet of total front footage.

According to a description of the project, Sternberg is proposing to build a 580-square-foot floating timber framed dock off-site. It would be delivered to the site by tugboat and secured with three pilings. There would be additional pilings “to support aluminum access pier." “Install aluminum gangway,” says the application.

Work would be done from a floating barge “in adequate water with experienced crew,” the application states.

It goes on to say, “Minimal impact, standard and common duties associated with project. All excess materials collected and disposed of off-site at approved location. Complete mitigation plan not necessary."

Gridley said the city believes the denial of the application is supported by the Idaho Supreme Court case Dupont v. Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners, decided in 2000.  

In that case, a dock application was approved, but after the city filed its opposition, the application was revoked.

“The City produced evidence showing the area has been a designated swimming area for approximately 40 years, and the City was granted an encroachment permit to place buoys around the area at least 10 years ago. Furthermore, the buoys forming the outer boundary of the swimming area contain signs saying ‘No Boats,’” according to the Idaho Supreme Court in its summary of the case.

The court report went on to state that “Dupont argues the beach area in front of the swimming area (at least above the ordinary high water mark) is private property and he has a traditional riparian right to 'wharf out.' While riparian owners have traditionally had a right to 'wharf out,' the right is clearly subject to state regulation as can be seen by the Lake Protection Act. Based on the evidence produced at the contested case hearing, there is substantial and competent evidence to support the Board's finding of 'unusual circumstances.' Thus, we affirm the Board's decision revoking Dupont's permit.”

Gridley wrote that the court found the very presence of a long-standing marked swimming area constitutes “unusual circumstances” that would justify denial of an application for an encroachment permit: “It makes little sense for the Board to grant a permit for an encroachment when the intended use of the encroachment would violate applicable local and state laws.”

Mike Ahmer, IDL resource supervisor, navigable waters, said IDL objects to the application.

Ahmer said he asked the applicant to withdraw the application but he declined.

Ahmer said such a project would need to show a significant benefit to the public, under such areas as economic and social.

Ahmer said IDL does not think allowing a single dock in that area would benefit the public.

He said the dock would be between the stretch of water from NIC to City Park. There are 13 waterfront property owners in the area, and no docks.

For a premier waterfront location close to town, he said it's “unusual circumstances there are no docks on that stretch of coastline.”

There is also the concern that if one dock is allowed, more would follow.

“If one person gets a dock out there, then all those other parcels could apply for applications for a dock,” Ahmer said.

A hearing officer will preside over the “contested case hearing,” which is not the same as a public hearing that may be held on a larger project, such as a marina.

The hearing will involve IDL, the applicant and adjacent neighbors wishing to comment.