noharleyyet
Well-known member
Ah yes, I see it after reading it again, thanks.That was a reply to me referring to the house in the Bridgers
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ah yes, I see it after reading it again, thanks.That was a reply to me referring to the house in the Bridgers
You really think those pictures are a close comparison to what we are discussing? Not even close in my estimation. I have no idea what went on there, but do know that large rocks have to be pulled up in the right direction to dislodge them, and certainly that building site looks very rocky and might hold very large solid boulders that would require the right pull. Have you operated a large excavator such as the one in the picture on the low boy? Drive that one around the home in question to dig and back fill then let me know if you get wet.View attachment 316112
Here's 5100 sqft of excavation on 2 townhouse foundations. 8' walkout basements.
For reference-the lot, not house, the lot in MT is 0.06acres were discussing. The lot is half the amount of dirt vs the excavated qty in this picture
See the silt sock beyond the fill? See the concrete guy on the backside of the far foundation in front of the fill?
Here's a different angle, right on the edge of foundation 1, the far oneView attachment 316124
This foundation excavation is about the size of the lot in question. You can see the minimal tracks, from fill uphill.
This was done in a 320d. This specific 320d.
View attachment 316125
Now, with a straight face....Tell me exactly what and why you would put a piece of equipment to dig the foundation (or frame the house, you pick) in question in the river, that far out, requiring more boom or a long stick and why that made any sense to even suggest as logical thing they did provided there's not a shred of evidence to suggest that occurred in the homeowners drea
Rocks, probably, runoff, yes. Equipment in the river to dig or pour the foundation, No.
The idea that someone had to put equipment in the river to do any of the dig or the backfill is...well I'm not even sure what to say to that. As far as runoff maybe but I think it'd be minimal. Nothing to do with the argument at hand just an observation.Rocks, probably, runoff, yes. Equipment in the river to dig or pour the foundation, No.
It was my understanding when I worked for the NPS that the inholdings in Glacier could survive to the end of lifetime of owners in possession back in the 70s and that no significant improvements could be made to existing structures and NO new construction. At the end of owner's life, the NPS acquired the property by right of eminent domain. The terms were settled in courts a long time ago. I seem to recall one place on the other end of the lake that burned and couldn't be rebuilt. I'd like to know how the contractor got the materials and equipment through the gate. Some heads are gonna fall. Very stupid. Arrogant!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.
However, there is no Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain designation in the area, because the floodplain was never mapped.
“We can’t regulate a floodplain if there’s no designated floodplain,” said Zachary Moon, a planner with the county Planning and Zoning Office.
He also noted there’s no county zoning on private lands in Glacier, so there’s no other restrictions outside of sewer and water.
But Apgar is serviced by Glacier National Park’s sewer and water system, which serves both private and federal buildings and residences in the area.
FEMA confirmed it has not mapped the floodplain. It doesn’t typically map floodplains on federal lands, agency officials said.
“FEMA generally has not mapped flood risk on federal lands, e.g. national parks. There is some floodplain mapping near the area in question along the Middle Fork Flathead River, but that is on a contiguous area of Flathead County that is outside of the park boundary,” wrote Jennifer E Warren, agency spokesperson, in an email. “Although there are some private land withholdings in the park that fall under Flathead County jurisdiction, which include the area in question, a study of McDonald Creek would be almost entirely within Glacier Park and so that is likely the reason why no flood study has been performed here to date.”
It makes sense.Loophole allows construction of private home along McDonald Creek
A private landowner has built a home along the shore of Lower McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park and Flathead County planning officials say there’s nothing they can do about it.dailyinterlake.com
View attachment 319356
Not withstanding the findings of the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Dept and the county floodplain administration in concert with FEMA floodplain designation authority ... yet no court ruling has been seen as a result of the Flathead Conservation District (FCD) lawsuit and demands with regard to their authority. FCD actually comes under state Dept of Natural Resources and Conservation. FCD is not a county government department and unfortunately it seems (at least in Gallatin County) a huge disconnect between the floodplain administrator and the conservation district. So the FCD may yet put a halt to this streamside development. Please inform if something more recent contradicts the FCD stance described above.Loophole allows construction of private home along McDonald Creek
A private landowner has built a home along the shore of Lower McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park and Flathead County planning officials say there’s nothing they can do about it.dailyinterlake.com
View attachment 319356
Excerpt from article: The board determined the stream bank had been excavated in violation of the 310 law.Ongoing...
San Diego couple asks for ruling in Glacier Park home removal case
The California couple who built a private home along the banks of McDonald Creek inside Glacier National Park have petitioned the Flathead County Conservation District for a declaratory ruling — another step in the regulatory process that could see the matter eventually go before a district...dailyinterlake.com