Californians build house in GNP. FCD demands halt and removal.

[Sytes]

The Last Best Place.. fading one addition at a time.

"In a recent federal court filing, the Flathead Conservation District (FCD) defended its decision to order the removal of a home under construction on a private parcel in Glacier National Park, arguing that its location within the park’s boundaries does not preempt the enforcement of the state’s foremost streambed protection law, characterizing the regulatory measure as “entirely consistent with the purpose of the National Parks.”

As the defendant in the case, the FCD also disputes the property owners’ assertion that they received permission from Glacier National Park to build a home without a permit on the banks of McDonald Creek, at a prominent location visible to millions of visitors passing through Apgar Village inside the park’s popular west entrance."

Conservation District Responds to California Couple's Lawsuit, Maintains Glacier Park Home was Built Illegally - Flathead Beacon

In a recent federal court filing, the Flathead Conservation District (FCD) defended its decision to order the removal of a home under construction on a private parcel in Glacier National Park, arguing that its location within the park’s boundaries does not preempt the enforcement of the state’s...

flatheadbeacon.com

 

[Ought Six]

Absolutely ludicrous

 

[duckhunt]

He doesn't need to move it. This springs snow melt and flooding will move it for free.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

I don’t like the way the article ended.. it sounds like it’s a developing story so I’ll stay up on it but the article seemed to end abruptly IMO.

I hope they tare that sucker down. There was some white twinkling tyvek up high in the Bridgers kinda near the M last summer that just chapped my ass, but in the natl park?? right on the bank of the river/creek? The laws revolving around ownership and use within the park are interesting also… If they’re allowed to erect mansions in these areas I would be quite upset for the well being of these wild places.

 

[noharleyyet]

I suppose you still can't corner cross the parcel...; )

 

[Straight Arrow]

I suppose you still can't corner cross the parcel...; )

Unless you cut through the kitchen ...

 

[stoep]

I don’t like the way the article ended.. it sounds like it’s a developing story so I’ll stay up on it but the article seemed to end abruptly IMO.

I hope they tare that sucker down. There was some white twinkling tyvek up high in the Bridgers kinda near the M last summer that just chapped my ass, but in the natl park?? right on the bank of the river/creek? The laws revolving around ownership and use within the park are interesting also… If they’re allowed to erect mansions in these areas I would be quite upset for the well being of these wild places.

I am glad I wasn't the only one looking at that tyvek. It pisses me off every time I looked at it. And then they painted the damn house white.

 

[Bluffgruff]

The house in Glacier is an eyesore. I walked by it in the creek in July, and it hangs out over the creek. It's only a few feet back from the bank, and erosion will cut that closer soon (already happening).

 

[buck137]

I'm surprised it hasn't been burned down.

 

[trackerbacker]

Private property, no county permit process/minimal county building reqs, property status pre-dates the national park, .gov utility connections approved....

How many of yall suffer TMJ from uncle sam?

I support the amblers and hope they prevail. Man oh man was I not aware MT had to import men with backbone...no wonder yall hate NRs..

 

[Flatbrimmer]

 

[Straight Arrow]

no wonder yall hate NRs..

No hatred ... just disappointed in some. Y'all not from around here it shows. Y'all never spent much time in Glacier, Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain Front Montana backcountry ... and most prolly never floated McDonald Creek.
However, we strong backboned Montanans with one of the highest per capita war veteran numbers adamantly support your right to whatever opinion you desire to express.

 

[trackerbacker]

No hatred ... just disappointed in some. Y'all not from around here it shows. Y'all never spent much time in Glacier, Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain Front Montana backcountry ... and most prolly never floated McDonald Creek.
However, we strong backboned Montanans with one of the highest per capita war veteran numbers adamantly support your right to whatever opinion you desire to express.

Have you seen the replies? They painted it white! They should tear it down!

Strong backbone. Strong indeed.

Let's jump to the issue-seems like 310 permit.

They aren't in a flood zone per fema. Per definition of 310 and the fdc rules and by photos and angles, seems they are up and away from what is deemed bank per the actual law.

Are they an inch over/under on their pads? Not sure as they (commission) don't produce any maps/gis/etc l, just definitions and rule of law. So let's say they have breached the line, fema wise-thats a few thousand and some amendments plus insurance. Let's say they are on the "immediate stream bank" (again-per 301s rules and defintions), again, minor infraction, some cash and correction.


Tear down, removal and stop all future hopes of building? Get bent. Looking at the photos it appears all pads are very, very close to the line. Very. Though provided the tree line angles, I'd say they are in "safe" zone.

And that pisses off the commission. Not the free 310 that wasn't filled out as, besides maintenance grooming that looks done, I see very little infraction to warrant the actions, as the work appears inside the treeline, beyond the "immediate bank", it leads me to believe a scorned government employee has a crusade.

And strong backboned Montanans are hurt by houses and paint colors and are in support of tearing down personal, private property for....what gain, please remind me.

See that natural bank edge? See where they are? Reference the tree line. Their property doesnt extend that whole edge along the creek, so i see them in congruence with the rule AND THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY OF THE BANK FORE AND AFT OF THEIR PROPERTY


20 minutes of background, doesn't take long...

 

[Sytes]

It should be removed based on the info shared..

Their defense: "permission from Glacier National Park to build a home without a permit..."

I call b.s. DOI would never authorize ANY personal or business built w/o proper permits.

 

[Straight Arrow]

They aren't in a flood zone per fema. Per definition of 310 and the fdc rules and by photos and angles, seems they are up and away from what is deemed bank per the actual law.

'Don't know your basis of fact for that conclusion. It would be a surprise if that structure is out of the 100 year floodplain completely.

Let's jump to the issue-seems like 310 permit.

Federal, state, and conservation district statutes and rules apply to 310 permits. Flathead Conservation District calls the location "illegal" and that district board has authority over McDonald Creek.
My familiarity with the conservation district around my place has revealed that the districts have authority in placing rules and restrictions even more stingent that federal and state, so without you knowing specifically the basis for the Flathead Conservation District's ruling, your position is merely uninformed personal opinion.

 

[trackerbacker]

It should be removed based on the info shared..

Their defense: "permission from Glacier National Park to build a home without a permit..."

I call b.s. DOI would never authorize ANY personal or business built w/o proper permits.

It's private property, with an agreement more than likely baked into the abstract from 1908, predating the 1910 park, that has remained private property, with a government agreement on the rights of said claim.

That image, is posted above,from the article.

That's their claim. Their claim is the county building department said (example) nah we don't issue building permits or only inspect x and z, let us know when we can do x and z.

In their court papers it said on x date 2019 we contacted the county that said blah blah blah, on x date 2021 we contacted gnp and they said blah blah blah, all answer pointing to not no.


Then a commission got prissy over 0, and seems until this property, it was all NBD.

'Don't know your basis of fact for that conclusion. It would be a surprise if that structure is out of the 100 year floodplain completely.

Take you backbone, haunched over a keyboard, Google fema flood maps, go to that creek you are so invested in as a local MTian and look. The nearest 100/500 is OUT OF SIGHT.

Their address or coordinates I won't post given the replies.

Federal, state, and conservation district statutes and rules apply to 310 permits. Flathead Conservation District calls the location "illegal" and that district board has authority over McDonald Creek.

illegal by their viewpoint and opinion, but not illegal by the very defintions and statements IN AND OF the law. That's MCA 75.7.1

My familiarity with the conservation district around my place has revealed that the districts have authority in placing rules and restrictions even more stingent that federal and state, so without you knowing specifically the basis for the Flathead Conservation District's ruling, your position is merely uninformed personal opinion.

Here is your precious fcd


That's the most they have for map, descriptions, visuals, gis, lidar, etc,besides the word of the law itself. So let's look.

Not in fema floodplain. Check.
Not in the stream. Check
Not on the stream bank edge (immediate bank) Check.
At, in or behind treeline. Check.

By golly, looks like a scorned government agency who didn't get their way on private property, maybe they were outbid, maybe the head of the commission was going to buy it personally and some cali guy hit on his wife, bought the land to build a swingers den, and now mr commissioner is using .gov to get his will. Idk, paint colors don't hurt my feelings.

 

[trackerbacker]

Hope yall get 310 permits for crossing streams, don't be a hypocrite! Them crispis cause erosion on the banks bruh

#ErodeQuietly #StopScrambles #Free10forlife

 

[Straight Arrow]

NBD? That's where you are way off! Your documentation only supports my point regarding conservation district authority with respect to development over, in, and around rivers, streams, and springs.

But thanks for the well crafted reply, Amber relative, attorney, engineer, developer, advocate, friend or whatever.

 

[mtmuley]

Wonder how it got as far as it did before it became a problem. I work on custom homes, and in that stage it took awhile. Sweet jobsite
mtmuley

 

[noharleyyet]

Wonder how it got as far as it did before it became a problem. I work on custom homes, and in that stage it took awhile. Sweet jobsite
mtmuley

This