Over the last few months, steel pilings for a bridge have been set between the north shore of Flathead Lake and an island commonly known as Dockstader Island, and Bigfork residents have been wondering how the bridge got permitted without public scrutiny.

The bridge will be 481 feet long, 16 feet wide, decked with concrete and used for vehicles to access the island. It is being built by Roger Sortino’s family to provide access from family-owned property on the north shore to the island, which Sortino also owns.

Flathead County Planning Director B.J. Grieve said it was one of the strangest lakeshore regulation permitting situations he has ever encountered.

On the one hand, he was obligated to protect Sortino’s right to apply for a lakeshore permit, unless it was specifically forbidden by the county’s lakeshore protection regulations.

Grieve ultimately determined that Sortino’s family had the right to apply for the permit, in part because the regulations pertain to docks, not bridges, and because the area that the bridge will traverse used to be a spit of land that still is part of the Sortino property. After years of erosion, the spit became an island, but the property owners have been paying taxes on the land that gets submerged under less than two feet of water every summer.

“He has an inherent right to get from one part of his property to another part of the property he owns over land he owns,” Grieve explained.

But Grieve was well aware that the bridge would spark controversy.

“I knew that when he finally started builidng this thing, all kinds of hell was going to break loose,” Grieve said.

Construction started Jan. 30 and Grieve said he has been getting “lots of calls” about the bridge in recent weeks.

Because of the unusual nature of the permit application, he doubled down on researching every angle of the regulations and prepared a memo that was included in the permit file before it was presented to the Flathead County commissioners in March 2011.

In the memo, Grieve wrote that it was a challenge for planning staffers to figure out how the bridge related to regulations that pertain to docks.

The bridge did not meet the regulations’ definition of a dock, a structure used for mooring watercraft and swimming activities and it does involve similar materials and methods of building a dock.

“Regardless, a dock is listed as work that can be done with a permit,” Grieve wrote.

The regulations do include provisions related to the amount of “impervious coverage” — typically the amount of dock space that can be built based on the amount of lakeshore frontage that is owned.

Under the formula, if a person has 100 feet of frontage, he or she can build no more than 800 square feet of impervious coverage.

But the Sortino property turned out to be different. With 100 feet of north-shore frontage and roughly 7,700 feet of frontage around the island, the regulations entitled Sortino to 14,865 square feet of coverage.

The bridge amounted to 7,700 square feet and a proposed boat dock on the island amounted to 840 square feet — all well within what would normally be a fairly restrictive formula.

Grieve noted in his memo that his review was only to determine how the regulations apply to the bridge, and it did “not preclude the [county commissioners] from ultimately determining that the impact of the proposed structure may be significant.”

Minutes from the March meeting indicate that Commissioners Jim Dupont and  Pam Holmquist questioned whether the permit application should have been referred to the county Planning Board, which would have involved published public notice.

Grieve said lakeshore permit applications are not referred to the Planning Board unless they require a major variance, and the bridge “didn’t require a variance because it’s something that can be processed under the regulations.”

With consideration that the entire structure was on private property, the two commissioners determined that the bridge did not amount to a major impact.

But people that Grieve is hearing from don’t see it that way.

“The bridge itself is going to detract from the wild feeling that has always been there on the north shore,” Bigfork resident Jeanne Southwood said. “I think it’s going to be an eyesore in that it detracts from the natural beauty ... During the winter it will be this ugly thing on rusty pilings.”

Elsa Putzier frequently kayaks through the area the bridge will cross. As permitted, the bridge design includes an “overpass” type structure that will allow small watercraft to cross underneath.

Putzier said she believes the many people who regularly anchor their boats and swim in the vicinity of the island will be surprised by its presence.

“It will be a big shock to them when they come,” she said.

They may also be surprised by trespassing enforcement in the area.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Warden Captain Lee Anderson confirmed that last summer, at the request of the Sortino family, wardens were advising people that they could swim in the area but they couldn’t touch the lake bottom.

“We didn’t cite anybody but we did talk to the county and explained to the public that they do own the bottom of the lake,” Anderson said. “You can recreate on the surface water but you can’t touch the bottom.”

Anderson said there is a specific provision in Montana’s stream access law that backs that up.

What remains to be seen is how the bridge will be accessed from the north shore property. Grieve said there currently is no road leading to where the bridge will abut the shoreline.

Flood-plain regulations do not prohibit vehicles from driving across the flood plain, but if a road were to be built, requiring the use of fill, that would require a flood-plain development permit.

Grieve said there has been no application for such a permit.

Another option would involve applying for a “letter of amendment” to the flood-plain map for the property, which includes areas of land that fall within the current flood plain and areas that do not.

“It’s my understanding that we’ve been contacted by technical representatives [for the Sortino family] who have asked questions about the flood plain on that property,” Grieve said.

There have been regular on-site inspections during the bridge construction, and so far it has been in compliance with permit conditions, Grieve said, adding there will be inspections when the project is complete.

“The inspector will be monitoring this carefully,” he said.

Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by email at jmann@dailyinterlake.com.