Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lakeshore Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve a slate of lakeshore permits and deny an Alberta Ltd. variance over incorrect elevation data and environmental concerns
Summary
The board approved a series of Flathead Lake lakeshore permits (dock replacements, minor dredging, shoreline stabilization, pumps and stairs) and denied two variances for an Alberta Limited application after finding the applicant relied on an outdated mean annual high-water benchmark and that the proposed retaining wall and stair would harm habitat and visual character.
Commissioners approved multiple lakeshore permit requests — including dock replacements, minor dredging, gravel redistribution, shoreline stabilization and boat-lift installations — while denying two variance requests from the same applicant that proposed expanding shoreline structures lakeward of the county's mean annual high-water elevation.
Planning and Zoning staff Caitlin Meschley presented a sequence of permit requests from property owners across Flathead Lake (Beanie; Morrison; Goats; Wollstein; Pisk; Wenz; Madison Living Trust; Graham 2024 Trust; Bradshaw Family Trust; Eagle Island LLC; Ashbridge & Bogart). Items included minor dredging at a boat slip, replacing crib docks with flow-through docks, removing accumulated gravel for boat-lift operations, installing a submersible irrigation pump with limited redistribution activity, and riprap for shoreline stabilization. Each permit was moved and approved by the commissioners after brief staff summaries and limited questions.
The meeting's most contested item was a variance application by 1865795 Alberta LTD. Planning staff and commissioners noted the applicant based its design on an older mean annual high-water elevation of 3,009.56 feet, while a corrected benchmark provided in August 2023 yields a county calculation of 3,013.78 feet. Planning staff (Eric Mack and Caitlin Meschley) and commissioners reviewed variance findings and concluded that (1) the applicant had not demonstrated an unusual hardship or lack of reasonable alternatives, and (2) the proposed retaining wall and integrated stair would materially diminish water quality and littoral habitat and create visual impacts. The board adopted findings and denied both variance requests.
Why it matters: lakeshore permits and variances affect shoreline ecology, private property access and public-interest shoreline rules. The variance denials underscore the county's reliance on updated benchmarks and concern about habitat, water quality and scenic impacts.
Next steps: approved permit applicants will proceed under the permit conditions; the denied applicant may revise plans with correct elevation data and reapply.
