Three Forks Councilman Asked To Recuse From Vote
Author: Eliza McLaughlin - Staff Reporter
Three Forks Councilman Asked to Recuse from Vote Eliza McLaughlin - Staff Reporter Three Forks City council members learned firsthand when they can vote against — and when they are not allowed to vote at all — during the discussion to approve or deny an application to amend a conditional-use permit for Rick and Valerie Lamb during the council’s Jan. 10 meeting.
The amendment, which is the third of its kind since the permit was approved in March 2020, requested permission to construct an awning along the southeastern and southwestern sides of a storage building at their campground. The amendment also requested approval to move the location of the outdoor fire pit.
Before the council could discuss the amendments, councilman George Chancellor was asked to recuse himself from the vote because he had previously expressed that the application should not be approved because the Lambs had developed a habit of violating their permits.
“We do not believe that based on those comments, that he [Chancellor] can be a fair, impartial decision maker on the issue tonight,” said Rick Orizotti, an attorney representing the Lambs.
Orizotti said the Lambs had waved their prior request that councilman Steve Dahl not participate in the vote to allow a quorum among the council.
Chancellor admitted that he had no objections to the awning nor the location of the outdoor fire pit, adding that the approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent.
“He’s trying to destroy the integrity of the agreement, and it reflects directly on the integrity of our council and our boards,” Chancellor said but agreed to “sit quietly” and not participate in the vote.
David Brooks commented that he was not in favor of removing Chancellor from the discussion.
“That’s his job, and for someone to be offended, or to make a misperception as to his intent, and he should be summarily dismissed from his job. I do not agree with that,” Brooks said.
Another member of the public voiced concern that elected officials not be permitted to represent the people who elected them.
Had Chancellor not agreed to step out, City Attorney Susan Swimley advised that the rest of the council should then decide whether he could consider the application impartially. Swimley added that in the past, those who “sit out” on a vote usually leave the room so as to prevent their body language as being perceived as comment.
During the discussion on the application to amend the conditional-use permit, the council and members of the public questioned whether it was legal for the council to deny the application based on the fact that construction on the awning has already begun.
“He started that without asking permission,” councilman Gene Townsend said, and Orizotti agreed.
Orizotti also mentioned that the Lambs had constructed a kitchen and apartment in the campground’s storage building — neither of which were part of the approved plans — but wouldn’t use them without permission.
“It’s not completed and it’s never been used as such — will never be used as such unless and until both the zoning and planning, and this council, approve,” Orizotti said, adding that the rooms in the apartment were pretty much finished.
“To me, that’s good enough reason to say no,” Brooks said, citing the awning’s unapproved construction and other permit violations.
Councilwoman Nancy Todd agreed that the previous violations were cause for concern, but not in the approval of the amendment application.
“If we have gross violations of our [conditional-use permits], then — in my opinion — I think we have a problem with enforcement,” she told her fellow council members.
Swimley explained that this application could receive an additional “after-the-fact” fee when it gets processed.
While the unapproved apartment and other violations were frequently discussed, the council was reminded that the topic of discussion was whether the awning and fire pit location would have a negative impact on the area around the campground — and not all in attendance disapproved of the additions.
Orizotti said that he believed the amendments would not negatively impact the community.
A member of the public told the council that she favored the addition of the awning as it is a fairly common feature for Montana campgrounds. She added that she preferred a large, single fire pit as opposed to individual pits at each of the campsites.
The amendment application was approved unanimously, but not wholeheartedly.
“I’m disappointed that a longtime council member and longtime member of the planning board, in my opinion, was ostracized about his opinion at a meeting,” Townsend said. “There’s nothing wrong with being against something if it’s not done right, and this wasn’t done right.”
