Work on the controversial Dockstader Island bridge on the north shore of Flathead Lake was allowed to continue Wednesday after a brief stop-work order issued by Flathead County was lifted.

As island owners Roger Sortino and his daughter, Jolene Dugan, move forward with removing bridge pilings put in last year and moving them in a new location, further opposition to the bridge surfaced Tuesday when the Community Association for North Shore Preservation sued the county, alleging an unlawful issuance of a permit to build the bridge.

In late January, Flathead County commissioners granted a permit extension to Dugan and Sortino to build a 481-foot bridge from their property on the north shore of Flathead Lake to their private island. The permit extension is valid until June 1.

“The county issued the permit extension without so much as a courtesy call to us,” said Don Murray, a Kalispell attorney representing the Community Association for North Shore Preservation. “The county knew full well of the public’s interest in this issue but failed to notify the public of this permit extension. That’s unacceptable.”

About 85 people protested the permit extension Sunday at a rally near the Sortino family’s property on Holt Drive in Bigfork.

After Dave Hadden, a vocal opponent who lives near the bridge site, alleged that the contractor hired to remove the pilings had altered the shoreline in violation of lakeshore protection regulations, the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office issued a stop-work order on Tuesday to investigate.

“The stop-work order was simply posted so we could investigate an allegation [from Dave Hadden] of fill being placed on the north end of the island,” county Planning Director B.J. Grieve said Thursday. 

The county code compliance officer investigated the matter on Tuesday and Wednesday and found the allegation to be unfounded, Grieve said.

“We found no evidence of new riprap rock, or of any moving of rock besides that which needed to occur within the scope of building the permitted access bridge,” he said, noting the compliance officer compared before-and-after photos and interviewed the contractor, Sortino and Hadden.

“We determined there was no basis so the stop work order was removed Wednesday afternoon,” Grieve continued. “We’re taking every reasonable precaution to ensure compliance, based on the controversial nature of the project.”

The lawsuit contends that while the county may issue a permit without public review of a project that is deemed minimal or insignificant, a 481-foot bridge is neither minimal nor insignificant.

The county halted work on the bridge in April 2014 because the bridge was designed to be 620 feet long while the lakeshore construction permit allowed only a 481-foot bridge.

A boundary line adjustment was completed in December 2014 and Sortino started work to remove the offending pilings and began placing them in a straighter, more direct alignment to meet the 481-foot requirement.

Grieve said the work being performed in the lake bed still falls under the original permit.

“The original permit was to place a number of pilings in a particular location to support an access bridge of a particular shape,” Grieve said. “Since that location wasn’t where they were placed the first time, he’s required to remove the offending pilings, restore that area of the lake to its pre-disturbed condition, and comply with the permit as approved.”

Public opposition to the bridge erupted shortly after construction began. By July last year 400 people had signed a petition opposing the project.

— The Bigfork Eagle contributed to this story.