Board of Health - Regular Meeting

Springy. Hello. Welcome to Lake County's public health meeting. We are the board of county commissioners and also the board of public health. It's March 2nd, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. and will now commence this meeting. First up is Lake County Public Health presentation and discussion regarding Healthy Kids Colorado survey and how it informs public health and public health's work on mute tobacco and substance use. Kelsey,

thanks. Hi everyone. Um, so we wanted to present this for a couple of reasons. One, our grant requires that we present this to you all. And two, since y'all were not here in these seats when we created our tobacco retail ordinance and regulations, this can help understand kind of where we came from and how we got to where we are at now. Um, and please ask questions. I think does the public hearing not start until 4? I think we have 30 minutes. Okay, so it will start whenever you're done. Take your time.

Sounds great. Um, so we just ultimately want to chat with you all about how um, the Healthy Kids Colorado survey um, impacts the work that we do at public health. Um, if you're unfamiliar, this is a survey that's given every other year to middle and high schoolers at public schools. Um, and if families don't want their children to participate, they can opt out. Um, but it's incredibly informative information. Um, completely anonymous. Um and it's how we can get a lot of information directly from the youth on um mental health, nutrition, physical activity, substance use, um suicide, um thoughts, racism, etc. Um and it really helps show where Lake County is at, where our region is at, and then where the state is at um as well in all of these areas. I'm remembering as a kid I took this

in my home room. Okay. Yeah. Been around for a while and everybody lied on it. Really? Yeah. Okay. But that was the '9s. So maybe people don't lie anymore. Well, I think if they are lying, we're still seeing some pretty high rates of things. So we're going to we're going to talk about that. That is anecdotal. I don't mean Right. Yeah. Yeah. Um was it anonymous then? stuff. It was okay. Oh. Oh. Whoops. Oh, shoot. Go back. Oh, no. How do I know this? Yeah, you can move it.

Sorry, I don't drive this a whole lot. Um, okay. So, ultimately in the data we're using right now is from 2023. Um, Lake County did just do their 2025 survey, but that information will not be available to use publicly until more like the summertime once they've had to um time to compile all of the state and regional data. Um, the caveat here is that we in 2023 did have a lower than 60% participation rate. However, this is the data that we have. So, it is the data that we are using specific for Lake County. Um, and so 55% of the high school students here felt that it would be sort of easy or very easy to get electronic vapor products if they wanted. Regionally we see 44% and statewide we see closer to 49%. Um, some other things that are pretty notable, um, that are not on this slide are that in Lake County, 42.3% of students think it would be easy or very easy to get cigarettes if they wanted. And that's compared to 31% statewide, so about 10% higher in Lake County.

Um, and then we're seeing 36.1% of students who have ever used an electronic vapor product. in um statewide we're seeing that at about 30%. And then in Lake County we're seeing about 55% of students feel it would be sort of easy or very easy to get electronic vapor products if they wanted and the state um is closer to about 49%. So in all of these areas we have been seeing that it's easier to access and then we have higher rates of use of tobacco. Um, obviously the survey also talks about alcohol use and marijuana use, but we're just going to focus on tobacco use um for this presentation because that's um what our funding supports and also the program that we have now. But it doesn't mean we're not thinking about the other rates of substance use um in Lake County. Okay. So, our local tobacco retail ordinance um was something we started working on in 2023. Um based off of this data, um public health is funded through the step grant, which is the tobacco education and prevention funding, which is funded through amendment 35, which puts a statewide tax on tobacco and nicotine products. Um and that started in 2005. So, um, this work has kind of been a long time coming and it it goes in three-year grant cycles. So, in our in the cycle that we're currently in and wrapping up at the end of June, um, retail sales and reducing access to youth um, has been like our strategy that we've been working on. So, the big project for that was creating this retail ordinance and supporting regulations because that's kind of the first step in order to regulate tobacco at a local level at all. um if we ever wanted to look at flavor bands or anything else like this would be the

first step. So that's why we got um to this place. Um so during that process um Alana and I consulted with Summit in Eagle Counties to understand their processes, how they got there. Um and Alana even went and shadowed one of their staff for a day while they did all of their inspections so we could like truly understand what work went into this. Um, and then we worked with the state to develop um, what we wanted to see in our regulations. And in Lake County, we have actually some of the strongest regulations in Colorado. Um, which we're pretty proud of. Um, did make it a little harder to enforce. That was um, something we learned along the past year, but I think we're really really glad to be where we're at and looking forward to continuing to work on this. Um, so some of the the big wins here were that we raised the minimum age to sell tobacco products to 21 and that is evidence based to reduce youth sales. Um, we no longer allow promotions. So there's not like 20% off cigarettes or buy 1 get one free or like anything like that because we know that lower prices and promotions increase use of tobacco and nicotine. Um, we do local compliance checks. That can look like us going around to make sure that people are not doing promotions, have all their signage correct, etc. And then we also do, as you all know, cuz you were in a public hearing about this, um, sting operations where we take young people between the ages of 18 and 20 to attempt to purchase tobacco at each of our stores. And out of our 12 retailers, three of them sold to minors. So, that's a pretty high rate of sales to people under the age of 21. Just a reminder, the state age of purchasing is 21. We didn't do anything to change like how old you have to be to buy cigarettes. I don't even think we could do that if we wanted to. Um,

and then um we also have a minimum package size on cigars, which makes cigars less affordable and therefore reduces the likelihood of youth accessing them. I don't know about you guys, but the first tobacco I ever smoked was a sweet. So yeah, solid. Um, and then something else we did which is kind of twofold is we kept the number of tobacco licenses, but we allowed every existing retailer to get a license even if they um wouldn't be able to get one. Now we made it so that none of them had to stop selling tobacco to comply with our regulations. And um we increased the distance from school and youth serving facilities to 1,000 ft from them instead of the state um regulation is 500 ft from them. So some of our retailers are currently within 1,000 ft from schools or youth oriented facilities. And if they close then that will change the type of a business could come in afterwards. Um, the capping also supports the business side of things for people who already sell tobacco, protecting their retail sales and kind of giving them like a monopoly, if you will, on that. Um, it also protects our main street from just being flushed with head shops or vape shops and things like that. Um, I'll pause for a second. Do you guys have any questions right now?

Yes, ma'am. Can you sell cigars? Yes, we defined premium cigars, which is a price point and like a certain quality level, so that those could be sold singular singularly. What if the gas station changes hands? Does the tobacco license get to stay with the business? Not with the new um owners owners. So, Saturday sold again, their tobacco license would be at risk. they're not within 1,000 ft, but their new owner would have to apply for a a new tobacco license. So that last one only applies if you're within 1,000 ft of a school. People who are grandfathered there are some

so all everybody who was existing got grandfathered in. And the the only thing that would be that would change with turnover would be those few who are within 1,000 ft. Those would be able to Yeah. Hard to imagine any of them are or a child school. Well, in a youth serving facility. So like a park for example. Yes. That's where you got to smash your

Exactly. And that's what we want to stop, right? Um, so yeah, if they change hands, then we the new owner has to apply for their tobacco license there as the owner of that new facility because then we also look at does this person have any felonies? Have they gotten in trouble for selling to minors in other places? And that way we can kind of protect and ensure that responsible people are selling um regulated products in our community just like Yes. It's just like alcohol. Um, we do not monitor alcohol licenses,

but it is like that. Yes, it's the same process. Um, and then no, I'm not lined up here. Hold on. Um, and ultimately we we know that the denser um your population of retailers is, the higher the use is in your community ultimately. Um, okay. So, in other counties, what we're seeing, um, Summit County, they have a local nicotine tax. Um, and as of 2024, they have an 80% tax on all nicotine products and a $4 tax per package of cigarettes. That was something that they increased year-over-year. They started in 2021 at 40% or excuse me, 2020 and 40% and then went up 10% each year. And this is now their maximum. um that supports in their community prevention and sessation programs as well as child care housing and other like nonprofit initiatives. It kind of creates like a pool for like local grant opportunities. Um they also have a a TRL is a tobacco retail license. Um they have that implemented. Um they do compliance checks locally. Um and they also have advertising restrictions, etc. Um, something that's different between us and all of our partners is they are all enforced by their local law enforcement. Um, but we do all of the enforcement for our program because the only way for us to get this across the finish line with how understaffed our sheriff's office and PDR was for us to figure out how we could do it in house. Um, so that's how everything was written to give us that regulatory authority

um to do that. And then we worked closely with the rep department to get um young people between 18 and 20 who were already Lake County employees to help us with listing operations so that we were able to pay them um and do all of that legally. Um Chris Floyd did not want us using people under the age of 18 because then we would have to get parental consent etc. And that just added another layer of complexity. So luckily we have a large pool of 18 to 20 year olds working for our right department. Um, also in Summit County, they have a vape disposal program. Um, you can trade in your vape for um, a healthy activity. I used to work at the marina in Summit County.

And we would give out vouchers for like free kayaking and things like when people traded in their vapes. Um, and then vapes are like hazardous material. So then you have to have special um, make make sure that the facility that you take them to can dispose of them. So vapes are also um, a huge environmental hazard. So, that's something that we're thinking about in all of this as well. Um, and then all of their municipalities recently passed flavor bans. We are kind of watching interested how that goes in all of those communities. Um, Denver County also recently passed a flavor ban. Um, over 70% of their voters supported this. It does look like people are not excited about it now that it has been implemented. So,

Oh, really? Mhm. I think it's mostly their retailers and um obviously the people who voted against it are pretty loud now that it is being implemented. Plus that mean% tax, right? Yeah. That programs.

Yeah, it's it's a lot but it it's evidence-based and it worked. And I think we'll kind of see how all of these things settle in other these in other communities as we like consider what we want to work on next, which we'll talk about in a minute here. Um, and then in Eagle County, they also do a tobacco retail license. Um, they have a smoking ordinance that makes it um, all public places and workplace smoke-free. Um, and then they also do a local nicotine tax, $4 per cigarette per cigarette pack and then 40% tax on all other nicotine and tobacco products. And that is not increasing at all in the way that Summit did. So, that's just kind of their hinding spot. Um,

is there data on how much less it's trying to keep track of year sales to see if I haven't asked for that. That's a great question and I think if we considered something like that, I would want to get all of that information to present to you all to talk about it. Um, okay. So, do y'all have any questions about where we're at and how we got here? why we're doing some of these things.

No. Okay, great. I do want to celebrate a small win that like through the first year of this program. Um, obviously our goal is never to see a business fail. Um, but we did have a business that was selling to miners over and over again and offering promotions on vapes like buy one get one free. And they did this to our staff who went in there um to see how they were selling. um that business can no longer sell tobacco cuz they really showed us that they um had no regard for the age or or any of the regulations. So um and as we talked to the youth who were helping us, they were like, "Yeah, we know that this is where you go to get your products." So

um that's a pretty big win for us. It's kind of like getting a drug dealer out of our community because now they don't have the license to purchase the nicotine from their um distributors as well. Um, so where are we going? Um, we're excited to see the 2025 and 2027 Healthy Kids Colorado survey data. Um, because it can help us identify where we're making an impact and where we still have a lot of work to do. Um, some things we've also been doing is holding small focus groups with the youth. We've been um meeting with the youth coalition at Lake County Builder Generation and then also working with the PASS team, which is the prevention and safety team at the school um to see what are the teachers seeing, what do the students want to see. And what we're really hearing directly from the youth is that they don't want to use substances, but there's such a strong culture of substance use that they all continue to do it. they they are aware of the risks, but they they feel that it's just what everybody does, their family buys for them. So, I think what we really want to work on in this next grant cycle is working on that upstream angle of how do we support changing the culture of substance use with our youth in Lake County um through education through other programs that we could do. So things that we're thinking about is a vape disposal program to support one protecting the environment from um vapes getting just trashed. Um and then also like a second chance program. So that's where kids who get in trouble or caught with tobacco at school, instead of being punished or suspended, they get another opportunity and some different alternatives. Because what we know is that um traditional exclusionary discipline leads to increased student misconduct, increased dropout rates, and decreased student academic achievement. So, we want to

find a way to support those kids in when they do get in trouble with a substance at school or outside of school, whatever that looks like, how do we help get them back on track as opposed to kicking them out of school and getting them away from the trusted adults and all of those things.

Yeah. Um we also um over the past two years have been running the harm reduction coalition and we are going to be um starting next month a substance use prevention committee um because what we're seeing is that that upstream work is where where we're really lacking. We have we have some decent supports for people who are using substances, but we need to get in that prevention side and also um make sure that our youth feel supported in their journey if they do want to stop using um tobacco or substances. Um and then we just put on here like one of the quotes from our focus group was one of the kiddos said, "It's easier to find a vape than a therapist in Lake County." They were also like it's easier to get alcohol than go to the pool in Silverthorn. So, we're seeing our youth because they don't have access to a lot of these other resources using substances instead. And so, we want to see how we can help move the dial um in that area. Um and then we also know that 61% of high school students who currently use tobacco, they have tried to quit in the last 12 months. They they don't want to keep using tobacco, but they're stuck in that cycle. So, we want to increase those supports as well. Um, and something like a second chance program can really help with those kiddos, like being honest about their use and having some support. Um, getting to the other side if that's where they that's where they want to go. Um, and I think that is about where you're at, where we're at.

Wow. How can we support you all getting the step grant again? We already have the step grant again. Oh, you already got it? We do. Yeah. Even though it's ending this year, you got to reapply. Yes. Approve that. We forgot. Oh, it's probably on the consent agenda. Like we didn't have to really apply for it. Okay, great.

Um, we also the funding has been increased. We were at 80K per year. It's going up to 92. So, this is one of our most solid funding streams. Um, which is kind of wild that we have the best funding of all of our funding streams for tobacco prevention, but that's where we're at and it's obviously a huge need in our community. Um, where's that money coming from? It comes from amendment 35. So that's the state tobacco tax. Yep. Okay. So that can't get touched. No, it's like our safest funding stream. We might become the best at tobacco prevention as we lose funding all

smoking. Wow. Okay. Thank you so much, Kelsey. Do you guys have any other questions? Otherwise, happy to turn it over. How much vape? How much is it vape? They can be really expensive, like $30 or $40. Wo. How How long does that last? Like a week or one equals how many pack of cigarettes? Pack of cigarettes is like $16. What? We have a couple vapes that we unfortunately successfully bought during our singing operations. um says most vapes typically last between 200 and 600 puffs, but some high model capacities under offering 5,000 or more.

Wow. Wait, a standard 600 puff device is generally considered equivalent to a pack of cigarettes. Whoa, that is a very expensive pack of cigarettes, right? Yeah. Okay. Some of the vapes we bought were like $35. Yeah. Although at one of the stores that is no longer selling tobacco, you could buy one for 15 and get another free. So the price varies dramatically. H

Amy King, uh the physician's assistant said that vaping is much worse than just tobacco. Remember when they sold it to us? Like it's a good way to quit cigarettes and it's a lot safer. It's just vapor. She's terrible. Yeah. They getting popcorn lung or something. Yep. Popcorn lung. And like young people are having like heart issues and strokes and other things. Oh my gosh. It's wild how quickly they start like 25 26 year olds who have been vaping for you know 8 to 10 years whatever that looks like are seeing some pretty significant health problems. So, we're seeing those problems much earlier um than, you know, someone who's been smoking cigarettes for 40 years.

Wow. Makes me feel really good about that. The times where we've had tobacco licensing in front of us makes really good. So, thanks for giving us all this information. It backs up our actions, too. If the sheriff's department ramps up staffing, is there the option for you guys to not be doing the enforcement aspect of things? That feels like there's some kind of like risk in there for you guys. you got to tell somebody that they're in trouble and you know it's sort of like

so what we've done is to protect ourselves and our young people from like being identified is we don't serve the notice of violation for a couple of days so that they're not like it was that kid or it was these people. Um, and so we built in those protections to feel more comfortable cuz like when law enforcement does it, yeah, they pop them immediately, right? Two officers walk in and it's like happening, right? Then then you know who the young person was, you know, everything. But we wanted to protect the people in the program for doing that. And I think we've got a really good system that took a a lot to set up. Um, and the most licenses that we'll ever have within the city and the county is 12. So, now that we're pretty dialed in, I think I think that we can continue to enforce it. I mean, I I would certainly be open to the conversation, but I think we've gotten it to a spot where it's sustainable. Um, and we have to keep those employees. So, like Eugene, who does all of our retail food inspections, he's also the tobacco inspector, and all the licensing fees go towards his salary, and he does all those inspections. Um, because it has to be separate from the prevention funding. And then you have an inspector inspecting restaurants and also tobacco. It felt like kind of a decent a decent fit there. And it does I mean generate some revenue. They pay us $500 a year for their license. So I think that the the license supports the amount of work that we do.

6,000. 6,000. Mhm. Is there um is there like a a density that we're trying to get to? I respect where the ordinance went, but like if there are fewer retailers then it becomes harder for kids for kids to get access to it. So is there like a population to retailer ratio that we're trying to get to someday or there's not like a standard cuz I think it's one of those things where there's no like safe amount of access to tobacco, right? Um so like currently we started with six licenses in the city and now we're down to three.

Yeah. And um we changed the number of city licenses to four because when we started this process there were four retailers and two new retailers opened up during the 6 months that it took us to get this across the finish line. So then we expanded it to make space for them but then they've stopped selling since then. Um and there's one open license in the city right now and we don't have anyone no one's applied for it. And then all these people do also have to get a state license as well. And then they still get inspected by the state, but they they're their inspections aren't quite as frequent as ours.

Any other questions? Thank you for having Do you see um when it comes to other substances, do you see like marijuana or like cannabis or alcohol coming on board with any sort of funding that would help create similar programs or this is more like typical public health programming. Yeah, I would be interested in looking at those other ones, but that is certainly like some out of the box thinking and like other public health departments are not like regulating tobacco or I mean alcohol sales. Yeah. In their community, but I think that also from talking to the youth, we have a lot of work to do in how this community is selling alcohol.

I've heard so much more about alcohol than Oh my gosh, it sounds terrible. It sounds terrible. Yes. Yeah. Really? But I would love to see some of our work in this prevention, right? When we're talking about using tobacco funding to fund prevention, like it's going to go into alcohol and marijuana, use prevention with the youth. Like those are the three main substances that the youth tell us that their friends use, right? Or they use, right? Of course, it's always their Yeah. Yeah. No, me too.

Those piles of blue raspberry shooter bottles that are always piling up in my woods are not coming from No. adults. Gross. Yeah, they're everywhere. Huh? Great. Well, even though Alana wasn't here, she created this presentation and did a lot of research. So, well, thank you. Hand it over to you. Thank you, Kelsey. Thanks.

That brings us to item number two. which is Lake County Community Planning Development. A continuence of public hearing concerning Lake County on-site waste water treatment system

regulations located at 2453 County Road 11A, otherwise known as Alpen Flow. Variance application for non-conforming OWTS owners Sarah and Sterling Mudge of Switchback Limited.

This would be led by County Community Planning Development. Excuse me. I hereby open the hearing for the Alpenflow OWTS variance hearing that was continued from February 19th, 2026. When testimony was heard from staff, the applicant and members of the public. Procedure to be followed in this hearing will be as follows. The board will disclose any experte communications. The county staff will make an initial presentation on new information that pertains to new evidence. The applicant may then make their presentation on new information that pertains to the variance application. After that, any persons either supporting or proposing the application may present evidence on the new information. We may or may not limit. I guess I should decide if we're going to limit. Um, let me read that again. After that, any other persons either supporting or opposing the application may present evidence on the new information. Presentation shall be limited to three minutes today. Supporting the and opposing witnesses may be questioned by the board. Once questioning is concluded, no further questioning is permitted unless granted by the chair. The applicant may then present any rebuttal evidence. The parties and witnesses are asked not to submit evidence other than the new evidence and not to submit redundant, irrelevant or cumulative evidence. If someone has already made a point that

you wish to make, simply say so. The chair will also require that we require that all comments be made to the board and that there no be no dialogue between the applicant and members of the audience. At the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the hearing, the chair will entertain a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing and the commission will discuss and weigh the evidence. The board of health health will then retire from the meeting and the chair of the planning commission will entertain a motion on the application. The motion may take the form of one of the following recommendations. Approve the application with no conditions. Approve the application with the recommended conditions. Approve the application with newly identified conditions. Or deny the application. Community Planning and Development shall make a record of any substantial discussion on the motion and include that in the record. The board's decision decision will be in the form of a finding of fact. Are there any objections to the jurisdiction of this board or to the form or substance of these proceedings? Hearing none, I will now ask that each board member, if you have had any exparte communications, please disclose those now.

Elsa's had none. Andy's had none, nor have I. Now, the county will make its initial presentation. Thank you so much. Um, in teams, I keep going to teams. We have just a really limited um going to one drive. You get a chat and channels.

Chat and channel. You see how it says channels? Go on your board of health right there under BCC. You can share it at the top there next to post. If you click on today's looking Yeah. And then go into the packet and then Yeah. Okay. Um, thank you so much for help. Um, sorry. Can you just make sure that's shared?

Go to Zoom. Yeah.

Yeah. And then just right in the middle. You're doing great. You're doing great. you're doing and then yeah there you go. I figured it out. Yeah. Then you can minimize this and just put it in here. Yeah. There you go.

Okay. Um so the basis of our discussion when the hearing was continued was to gain more uh information on the availability of electricity to the site. Um and so uh we didn't receive any additional evidence from the applicant but we did look at the Excel energy coverage map. Um the dot there shows um the subject property and the coverage area extends out to the purple boundary of um cells uh coverage uh area. Um so that's the information that we were able to locate that was part of the request for the additional uh evidence for the continuation. Um however we did uh receive from the applicant on uh Friday afternoon some information about uh well access and consumptive use. So we received uh information that was based on this commercial drinking and sanitary row worksheet um known as form GWS57. This form is used for um exempt wells, meaning parcels under 35 acres um in order to look at the ability for them to change their designation from an in-house use well to a commercial well. Um so some of those guidelines and the uh general guidelines were applied by the applicant to their use. Um so this this form is actually meant for uh smaller parcels. the mudge uh uh parcel is is roughly 90 acres. So that's

specific to um under 35 acre parcels. So regardless of whether um this form was the appropriate form or not, um we do agree that um a commercial use in this location will likely need um an audit plan andor a change of use of the well when a well would be obtained. So, um, we we do recognize, um, that though from that information and and from the information that we've we've gained so far that a well is possible in this area, how um, whether it needs to be augmented or a change of use for commercial operation um, would be something that would have to be a further um, investigation by the property owners. Um, but we still remain in the same position. We don't believe that we have found or heard anything that as far as the t tent site portion of the property um that there it bears any geologic topographical access utility or engineering condition that would result in the inability to accommodate a conforming system. So the OWTS variance regulation does not provide relief of the cost burden to develop a site. Um rather it specifically prohibits a variance where a conforming system um can be accommodated. And so I think there was a question about what does it mean to accommodate? And so we would say that we have no evidence that says from all of those different perspectives or attributes the site cannot accommodate NTS. So we have not made any changes in our findings and we continue to conclude that we cannot recommend the variance

for the vault privies for the general patient. happy to answer any questions that you may have or turn it over to the applicants. Have any questions? Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Uh now we will hear from the applicant.

Thank you. Um so yes on Friday afternoon we gave sent staff the two forms form 45 and 57. Um staff is incorrect. In speaking with DWR directly I talked through them with each of those. Um our 70 sorry 64ish acre parcel doesn't need the county's exempt letter due to the subdivision just the 26 acre parcel. Um, so right now we would be pursuing a well on the 64 acre. Um, it is called a commercialexempt well because there has not been a well on site that has been put to beneficial use as of yet. So those are the very two forms that DWR told us to look at. They provide I hope that you looked at the summary that I provided staff and asked to share with you all. Um um so those are the very two forms and as you can see given the lowest estimation of a commercial use or the highest um or given some other gallons per day per user estimation that Sterling had heard um staff mention in a previous meeting of two gallons. Either way you slice it we are over the limit. Um yeah, we can provide well we're over the limit. Um I don't know what the status of the augmentation plan of the county is, but I sure do know that those are also going to have limitations. Um so we felt that this was kind of an obvious thing that we would have loved for an engineer to brought up have brought up to us as well. um and showing that you know our calculations um based on the range of those numbers uh for the flush toilets in the campground um would be well above by tens of thousands to hundreds of

thousands of gallons. Um, we also want to just reiterate that our um, and Sterling has a list of um, going through prior variances that you all have heard and approved and staff responses to those. um wanting to highlight kind of the discrepancies in staff. Um pointing to um opinion on uh what accommodation is, whether it's proximity, um accessibility, uh also emphasizing in certain cases that a reason was because they couldn't get a well when they did have a well. um or other cases were that um you know staff seem to go out of the way to emphasize their fun for solely sole economic gain. Um and here we are um we feel being treated pretty differently in that regard. Um we want to emphasize that economic gain isn't our sole reason. Our sole purpose is knowing and talking to those in the industry in order to operate that that system. Um you know we are we are facing all anyone in this climate is facing the challenge of operating a sustainable system. Um operating a system that is not going to be wasteful. Um operating a system that's not going to need replaced you know in in 10 or 20 years down the road and further impose um on the operations of our proposed use. Um let's see again sorry again I'm not sure I finished my thought on that having talked to industry um folks doing operations of maintenance of these systems and deciding not to use these systems in certain cases. Um we thought

I mean those the limitations with the water again that we provided in those calculations um we just want to emphasize that we're not just saying we can't do this ever. We we don't we don't deliberately don't want to provide flush toilets to a campground area and set ourselves up for a very challenging operations. Um never mind not having the ability to um meet the division of water resources restrictions and also look at further um development of the city. Do you want to move?

Yeah. Um, thanks all for hearing us out again. Um, I'm here to remind you all of some of the past proceedings um, undertaken by you as the county board of health um, with some highlights on some staff reports um, from the past. Um, starting with the approved variance for a vault on 49 for the ver property. Um the staff report cited no running water for the variance requested to be approved. Um on 1128 2025 the shaver um property under a no variance shall be issued where the property can accommodate a conforming OWTS. Um, this property has an existing well which is way up high on a a road that has been claimed by staff as inaccessible and unable to install a system. Um, it is an unmaintained county access road with multiple points of constraint. This is this is their staff finding. um the access to the property significant significantly limits the ability of a conforming OWTS to be installed even though it can accommodate with a well that is existing on the site already. Um we were able to look at this exact um engineer report um which was done by 285 engineering and their technical justification is the same exact one that we have in our engineer reform. Um on B on the same property shaver property no variance shall be issued to mitigate an error in construction involving any element of property improvement. staff finding no such error

exists. Um however in uh in C under it's solely for economic gain it uh it highlights and this is the staff finding the property does not does have a well drill. However, it does not have access to electric utilities to run the well. Furthermore, the location of the well is on the northern portion of the property while the structure is further south on the property and is on a considerable slope. So this goes against um B because it is an error in construction involving an element of property improvements. Um which staff did not did not find that. Um on C it says no variance shall be allowed solely for economic gain. Um after staff reported on this their staff finding um which was the property is to be used for commercial group camp with occupancy of eight persons. The property does have a well drill. However, it does not have access to electric utilities to run the well. Furthermore, the location of the well is on the northern portion of the property while the structure is further south on the property and is on a considerable slope. The property has limited access by unmaintained county roads and is unable to install electric utilities to run the well. This is the basis of the request and it is not based upon economic reasons. So at this point in the meeting, um, Commissioner Lee asked to clarify the statement that this variance request is not solely for financial gain. Um, Torson responded, "The main basis is lack of access and lack of ability to make a conforming system. It's not for economic reasons as to why he can't put it in there. It's the fact that you can't get heavy equipment in there. Elsa clarified it's

not that it's too expensive. It's not possible or desired. And then Ann chimes in and the findings suggest that the basis of like you coming in and being the sole reason is for the fact that it would be cheaper to go with a non-conforming system. So Torson is suggesting that the evidence shows that that's not the sole basis of this question. So the specific wording of it is that um for more than that there is going to be obviously as a group camp a financial benefit. This is a commercial operation but it's not the sole benefit. Um all this can be heard on on the 1118 2025 recording. Um this backs up the fact that our request is not solely based on e economic um benefits. In fact, it may cause us more to come for our

um moving on to the next variance in the same meeting. Burger Silver King Group, which is located um slightly underneath this the Shaver property under a no variance shall be issued where the property can accommodate a conforming OWTS. Um again they site um unimproved roadways um a fact the fact that it goes through US Forest Service and private land and that that limits access to installing conforming WTS. No variant shall be allowed for solely economic gain. Um they talk about this is their staff finding it does not have a well or access to install a well. Access for a normal pumping truck or other heavy equipment is limited due to the road conditions. The property has limited access by unimproved roads through private land and is unable to install a well. This is the basis of the request and is not based upon economic reasons. This is definitely a a matter of opinion because I'm not sure if anyone here has driven or operated heavy machinery. I know I have. Um, and you can pretty much go anywhere. Um, this is a suggestion and a staff opinion, not a professional determination. Um, this is also located underneath a property that has an existing web with similar unmaintained roadways. Um, let's see on to the next one that was also approved. So, three different approvals for the variances. Um in addition, so the next variant um it was the Shiloh property up Tennessee Pass Road or East Tennessee Pass Road. Um under a no variance shall be issued

where the property can accommodate a conforming OWTS. The conforming OWTS would require reasonable access. This is their staff finding for installing a system. The access to the property via Tennessee Creek Road is narrow and requires a high clearance 4x4. The road travels through both US Forest Service and private land. The access to the property significantly limits the ability of a conforming ODTS to be installed. So they're their their finding is based on again um opinion whether a a vehicle can get to a place. I know on that Tennessee Pass road, um I've driven a Toyota Prevy on that road and it has been improved since I I drove it in the last five years.

Um another point, this property is accessed from the same road that also accesses the Emilyn Hut. The Emilin Hut is located an additional 1.4 miles up a steep 4x4 road off of the Tennessee East Tennessee Creek Pass or East Tennessee Creek Road that they cited. Um, Emilyn Hut has a conforming OWTS system. Um, under C, no variant shall be allowed solely for economic gain. The property is to be used for a private backcountry structure with temporary occupancy. It does not have a well or access to install a well. This is again opinion from the staff. Um, I could go I could go on. Um, our our big point is that staff is staff is definitely inconsistent with their with their staff findings. Um, and it just the their opinion of access and them pushing and supporting a an OW of vault variance for a property that has an existing well and them making up their biggest stipulation with us is it just doesn't make sense. Um, if you look up in regulation 43, you'll find a definition of a vault. Vault means a water type covered receptacle which is designed to receive and store excretia or waste either from a building sewer or from a privy and is accessible for the periodic removal of its contents. If the vault is intended to serve a structure or structures that are projected to generate a domestic wastewater flow 2,000 gallons per day or

more at full occupancy, the vault is a domestic water wastewater treatment. Vaults are on-site wastewater treatment systems in general. Um that is some some findings from our from reviewing staff and reviewing the board of health opinions and um decisions on various faults um the four that we just listed. Um in addition I want to um touch on the sheltered site varants. Um, we are requesting that the board of health allow the use of the proposed alternative toilets, the TroO urine diverting toilet and the LVO drive flush. You might remember that that video of the dry flush. Um, the urine diverting toilet is called the composting toilet due to the fact that you, should you choose to, you can compost the waste collected. As stated in our variance narrative, Altonflow staff will dispose of the waste collected and will not be composting. This goes the same for the dry flush system. Um, under Colorado Regulation 43, the use of alternative toilets is allowed as addressed and was already shared with the clarification for the installation of composting toilets dated June 2025 from CDPHE. to highlight that um it states on the bottom and this is a CDPHE um clarification about composting toilets. The use of other technologies such as composting toilets may actually be beneficial in some of these limited situations. Alternative technologies may also include urine separation and periodic removal of solids for off-site management. In these limited remote locations, the local public health agency may choose to allow composting

toilets or other appropriate alternatives.

Happy to answer any questions. Certainly, I appreciate you doing all of the Sorry, chair. Go ahead. Appreciate all of the like precedents that you laid out on the board of health. How many of those because I can't keep them on my head. How many of those were backcountry sites? Just curious. Um, all four of them. Okay, that's And they all had dwellings, which is one of the the biggest things in structures. I agree. Which is one of our biggest arguments is that we aren't serving a structure. Yeah. and they're allowed

like Ping just said. Does anybody else have any questions from you to the presenters applicant? Yeah. Yeah. Um I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page with the limited use occupancy numbers. Um, the local regulations that we're working with define limited use occupancy as no more than 180 days per year um, and no more than 90 consecutive days. Is that something you guys were planning to stay within the boundaries on?

No. So, we brought that up at the last the original meeting of seeing that in staff's report and that was the first time it had come up within our conversations. Um, and we were pointing out specifically that that was cited

limited use in in the regulation 1.2 2. I think the local, right? It says, "Fault for privies may be allowed for limited use occupancy on a property which cannot accommodate no WTS with soil treatment areas where the dwelling does not have running water. Limited use occupancy means the occupancy of a structure or dwelling on less than on a full-time yearround basis." So, we were bringing that up to say this does not apply to us because we don't have dwellings. This is not a residential use. Um, this is a completely different use. There's plenty of language throughout rag 43 and the local rags that really address as well have been those past conversations concerns around um residential homes and our our use. Um we'd hope to operate more year round, 300 a year being closed a month on each end of the seasons um meeting comprehensive plan goals. Okay, cool. Thank you for clarifying that and pointing that out.

Um, and is it appropriate to let Torson are you going to respond? And Andy comment there about limited use and yeah, we don't have really anything else unless unless you would like to ask us any clarifying questions. I don't have any questions or discussion items. So that could wait. So if No, if you guys don't have any more questions.

Did you all want to address any of the electricity issues that you brought up last time? Um there's there's electricity in the area off of Half Moon Road. Um there's no we talked to we had a meeting with Excel Energy. They have a different engineer Ryan based out of Summit County. Um I hadn't seen that map, but I noticed that the map that staff showed doesn't cover part of our property of the tent site camping. Um I don't know if that means that we couldn't extend the service area beyond that or if it I don't know what that means. I think it just needs to get to the edges.

And yeah, there's the electrical thing as far as staff's um opinion that wells and things can't be run due to power alone. There's there's other sources of energy that can power some things. So that it's a it's a good point. You know, we can anything can be done. We can mine a 13,000 foot mountain. You know, if you have enough time and money, you can you can do anything you want to.

Would you at all like the um definition of that country at all?

Sure. Um, so backount where these other examples are, we're within a zone district that is defined as the purpose of the backcountry zoning district is to retain the relatively undeveloped character of backcountry areas in Lake County while still allowing for very low impact development consistent with the type of development that historically occurred in the area. Back country areas can loosely be defined as more remote areas typ typified by lack of maintained and improved roads, little to no infrastructure, and very limited or sparse development. Characteristics that may be present include sensitive environmental areas, wetlands, steep slopes, subalpine forest or tundra, remnants of historic mining activity, high ridges and alpine peaks and areas that provide scenic views. It is the intent of these regulations to allow for a variety of uses for property owner enjoyment that also minimize impacts to the natural environment. The zone district encourages the preservation of open lands that are either privately or publicly owned, managed, leased, or dedicated that are used for recreational ecological purposes such as wildlife habitat or open space. I think that's probably a given, but those examples all came from that zone. I I don't think I need to hear anything about like that it's not for economic solely for economic gain. I think we all sat through the last meeting and heard a lot of reasons why environmentally this option made sense. For me personally, it feels like we are trying to navigate the codes as they are, which is your guys's challenge every day at work, you know. Um, and we were, it felt like to me like the temperature in the room was that we wanted to see this thing happen. We were just trying to figure out how to do it within the framework of the codes we're bound to work by. Um, and I I felt like we had

just gotten down to how does this site not how is this site not accommodating for an OWTS? That's really something I'd like to maybe discuss a little bit more if we've been letting vaults go into other properties that might have some similar aspects or a lot of similar aspects. Then why why why are we unable to figure this one out? like seems I would just ask the chair if you wanted to continue to leave the evidentary portion open have a conversation we can do that let's ask sorry I'm out of I'm out of order

that's okay I just wanted to just mention we haven't closed that yet thank you um and also I'd like to hear from the public so would it be appropriate to Elsa has one more question Um, Sarah Sterling, based on the facts that you all provided, um, I can you tell us what you think the the total amount of use of water would be for your campground given your business plan and your anticipated use

here's my here's what I'm asking. you did all this work about um the maximum capacity of a third of an acre foot being able to be pulled from a well. Um and he said that at the amount of 8 gallons of water per day per person, how many people do you anticipate to be able to have on your site? So I can try and understand that. Yep. Those numbers are in the two 200 people in the campground area or the 250 people in the total capacity of the site. Um I thought that the 8 gallon was like a public search of typical user

in general. Right. There's there's the provided 5 to 50 gallon criteria that the division gives whether you're a church having people in seats or lodging or restaurant. Um there's various calculations and again either of those push us well above 108,600 gallons per year. Um so with the 8,000 gallon and I'm sorry I didn't print that out. I don't have that. I mean I see your various calculations but it says at the top 200 customers or 250 customers. Let's just say you're killing it. 250 customers times 300 days. I mean like you're not that's not feasible, right? Being at total capacity and that gets you to 150. So, sorry, where am I seeing the like where am I where am I missing the actual calculation for how many gallons you think you use per year?

There's a line. Okay. Um there I think that it's in what was provided to you. So, I'm looking 200 days times 200 people. Yep. times 8 gall per person a day. Um, is that the one? I think that is it. That's the 480,000 gallons. Yeah, but I mean even lodging capacity in this town doesn't go above 50%. So like that's where I'm asking how much we So these numbers aren't accurate compared to like actual anticipated use. That's just like there you could do.

Yeah. You're not going to have 250 people 300 days a year. Okay. Yeah. No, absolutely. I mean, that's that's our argument. We want to be open 300 days a year. We anticipate the 155 days of like awesome summer weather, tent camping, great. the rest of them providing spaces for van campers, which would be significantly less. And keeping the thinking the domes will run year round, but those are separate from from the uh uh campground request. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. Here's what I'm getting at. Not answering the question.

I'm looking for occupancy rates. your anticipated daily occupancy rate over the 300 year days a year that you want to be running because that's the actual accurate amount of how much water you would potentially be using. The occupancy rate that we had talked about is the max of 200 for the campground area. That that has been what the conversations have been and we have estimated everything super conservatively within that. I mean, I can run the calculation of 155 days versus she's she's getting at 250, right? So, let's get it closer.

So, if we had 8 gallons per person, 200 people times 155 days, which is 50%. If that can give us an average, that is still 248,000 gallons. Okay. I think I think that's I appreciate trying to build things off max. Absolutely. But right that's what we've been asked for to do with like that's why we have four vaults for max capacity for engineering. What we're trying to do now is not actually talk about the vaults. We're talking trying to talk about the well and potential on water onsite water treatment system.

So I guess in my mind If you can't go above 104,000

108,000 like what the that's your threshold right for whether we can say this site can accommodate that or not. And that mass max capacity is like not a real number. It's literally not possible to be at 200 customers every day. even 50% of the time that's not going to happen. So that's where I'm like I actually don't know what number to use because I don't know how much your business would actually need. Does that make sense? It does.

Yeah. But I will tell I mean in talking to DWR do you care how many fixtures we will have? Do you get right? The numbers they give us are what they are asking us to estimate by and that we would not over um draw. Totally. Well, totally. I hear that even at half the humans 180%. I hear that. Half the humans have.

Yeah. I don't have any other questions. Um, does anybody in the room like to speak? We'll give you three minutes. Just tell us your name. Stuart. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Stuart Franco. I'm a resident here at Lake County. Uh, I just came today to say I really like this project. Uh, I think it does a lot for Lake County for both residents and tourists that come here. checks a lot of boxes off in terms of needs we have and takes pressure off other locations. I think we have two highly respected applicants in the community with proven track record of managing and driving big projects to success. And I just think when we have applicants on projects like this, invest in a property and improve it and build something that's good for our county, we need to do whatever we can as a community and our representatives to support them in. So I'm just here to say that and I hope you guys Thank you, St.

Anybody else? I think I'm the only other person and I think for today I think we can see we have some inconsistency that's challenging to to flush out a little bit and trying to figure out how to move that forward. I can appreciate all sides with this. We have one other issue that we haven't delved into deeply which is and we're starting from another engineer to have I have some stated concerns around if we have a working septic system in that area that we know will not function 365 days a year 20°ree weather if it fails that we have the potential to contaminate the groundwater and not just impact our local area but some concerns around downstream partners. So that's a concern. I realize we're in a mortorium for this very reason and it begs the question of what does accommodate gets back to what does accommodate mean? We haven't looked at a septic system this size to accommodate this situation this type of campground in this area. So I think there's just some areas of concerning question. How do we navigate this in a way that sets up consistency but also looks at the potential impacts downstream if it does fail without a dwelling without a structure without so that's just a question I would pose for all of us to wonder about as we navigate this whether it's today or through this process

thank you Tamara still got minute and a half I'm good

okay no other public comment These two are a little bit at odds with each other as far as the process goes. So maybe you can advise me. And um the applicant now has an opportunity for rebuttal against the public comment and there was no against. And so now uh says the board can discuss and weigh the evidence. Over here it says we need to close the hearing before we do that. Is that right?

Right. And it should not close the evidentiary portion. I'll move to close the evidentary portion of the hearing. Second to a vote.

I I evidentiary portion of the hearing is closed. Uh and now the board will discuss and weigh the evidence. Okay. Number one, we need to solve if we want to be able to approve this, which is can the site accommodate an OWTS? For an OWTS, that mean needs water, that needs a well, and it needs electrical. Electric seems like it has to me been answered. electricity is possible to get to the property. The water, which the applicant has brought up, I really appreciate, which is that they can't go over a certain amount of gallons per year. I would just um you know, Sarah disagrees and we did not have enough time to get a response from the Division of Water Resources since we didn't get this evidence until Friday afternoon. Um but we have attempted to get in in in contact. I had provided um this calculation form in this basis to Sarah I think in August of 25 um as something to consider because exempt 12s have this ability. I did hear something like considering 26 acres versus 35. Um so I'm not sure about that but we you know we would like to if this is um a matter of concern of if those calculations have a bearing on the well prevent um that are substantial to any findings today.

We might want to make sure that we get that definitively from the division of water resources um about that if that is something that you want. Um what we're suggesting in the staff report is that based on our research is that um and we didn't get a response yet from Bryce either about being in the service area for the county's a plan but augmenting the use of that well is a possibility from of a lot of different pros as well. So uh but we do not have a response officially back from DWR as to that is the most accurate calculation to I mean they provided from GWS57

that's the form right there

oh excuse me that's the form that um that that calculation is based on and um when I was provided that from the division they told me that was for exempt parcels um so unless we're talking about a parcel under 35 acres. That's what I believe it's relative to. But again, I you know, I don't have that directly from the division to apply it to this project. So that's just just one thing that we have not had adequate time to review with the division of water resources. I just wanted to mention that the calculation is correct when I'm talking about whether or not it's applicable to um the parcel the part of the site. Yeah. If it's if it relative only to parcels that are under 35 acres. We I was able to do enough research today that I think that it's questionable to believe that the form is um applicable to parcels that are um over 35 acres. Sorry, I'm just let see if I understand this. You're saying we don't actually know if this could be applicable to something to a site that is larger but might have only a part of that site.

That doesn't matter if so we it's wells are based on the parcel side. The only way that it could be thought of only pertaining to 36 acres of a 90 acre parcel is if the property or excuse me, let's say 35 a 30 less than 35 is if the property was subdivided. The property has not been subdivided. So you can't apply I'm only going to put water I'm only going to use 36 or excuse me 23 acres of my 35 acre parcel or larger. um it would have to be recognized as a 13 acre parcel, which means it was legally subdivided in order to to look at a portion of it. Otherwise, you have to look at the entire parcel through the Division of Water Resources. You can't say, "I'm going to use a certain acreage of a parcel. It's whatever the size of the parcel is as it lies." um unless it's been subdivided and then that then we would have a very finite position from the division of water resources that that only a certain a group is being used.

Okay. But you also haven't had enough time to fully get that correct. I mean I just double check did hear Sarah um saying that this was only going to apply to a lesser than 35 acre parcel. I did not say that. Point of order. You close the evidentiary record. Right. So neither side should be introducing evidence at this point unless you guys want to hear more testimony. If you want to hear more testimony, you give both sides, I think, a chance to address this issue. And we would reopen the should we do would you advise us to do that? It's up to you if you feel you have enough evidence to make a decision. Um

I mean this isn't really evidence. This is more I guess it is evidence. It's information. was the information we provided when we started. I mean, I I Yeah, I think I need more clarification on this because now it's down to the water and I'm trying to follow the rules. So, I would ask that the evidentary portion be reopened. I'll move that it be reopened. I'll second that. To a vote. Hi. Hi. The evidentiary portion of this uh of this hearing is now reopened.

Thank you, Ann. So happy to to Okay. So then Sarah and Sterling, can you all go back to how are you what what is allowing you to apply this rule to a smaller part of your parcel? Can I ask what form was provided by staff? This one. The GW GSW57. Okay. That's the same one. Okay. It's from It's directly the same thing. So, our parcel, which I'm confused because I heard Ann just say it's not subdivided, is subdivided, okay,

by county road legally. which she also I believe said in the last meeting that we could get we have had a conversation that we could get water for either side. Okay. Talking to the division of water resources if the parcel is below 35 acres

Mhm. and it has been subdivided. And if the county has a rule that you create a legal subdivision by split of a road, way or such, then the county provides a letter of sorts proving that yes, we agree this person should be able to go to the state to get a well that would apply. In speaking to the division of water resources, Greg Davis, Jeff Davis, sorry. Um I said we have we have two parcels. We have been told we understand you can get two wells. Correct. Your one parcel is above 35 acres. So you are eligible. You don't need a a special exemption from the county in order to get a well. The well is called a commercial exempt well. That is the name of it. It's a 26 acre parcel approximately needs the letter from the county and then a well. We could get a well on each portion of the land. Um we don't currently we would desire a well on the 26 parcel at the moment but maybe we would do that in the future. Right now we're talking about the primary use on that 64 acre parcel.

64. Yep. Thank you. Yeah. So the east side of So the east side of 65 all contiguous post approximately. Okay. I would agree with what Sarah's saying as far as it created a legal subdivision of the 26 acre parcel which would then make that form relative to the 26 acres we're not talking

that form is relative to any commercial exempt well that you are requesting. The piece that is needed for the 26 acre as a special exception is the county or the jurisdiction saying yes, this parcel because it's below 35 acres has been subdivided prior to 72 and should get a an additional special exemption to get a well on the 26 acre parcel.

And would you respond? So the 26 under um uh 0621 it does create an exempt subdivision for the 26 acres 26 the 26 would then be eligible um we do this all the time. We confirm to the division of water resources if the parcel because it we have to give them an exemption because it from land use from subdivision regulations anything that's under 35 acres. And so under a resolution, we said any parcels that are divided by designated county roads become an exempt subdivision. So the 26 acre parcel has two options. One, it could have an exempt in-house use well or the flip side of that is an exempt commercial um uh permit as long as it doesn't exceed the 108,400 I think um gallons per year. So when we exempt uh when we have exempt parcels that can either have an in-house or a commercial exempt well that's under 35 acres. Those are the two options that are available. And so that's why we use this farm that I Sarah and had mentioned that that parcel could potentially fall under that category. So, I agree with what Sarah's saying for the 26 acres

and we're talking about those 64 acres and that cannot be applied for the 60. Yes. So, the 64 acres is a different situation that is not an exempt subdivision. Hey, you don't mind this

because it's over 35 acres. Senate Bill 35 requires subdivision regulations on anything that's under and so that's why it is not recognized um as a parcel. Um so the parcel on the other side is the one that we called today or we've been trying to reach the division again today to um all the information that I can find from the site and when I provided the information to Sarah in August of 2025 I told her this is a form that we use for parcels that are under 35 acres. Um, and so I I was contacting them to find out if there was any ability with a bigger sized parcel to realize the same type of consumptive use and I did not get that information back then. So we re routinely use this on anything that's under 35 acres. So, it's kind of a moot point because we're talking about the 64 acres which is used by they have a well they can get a well because they're over 35 acres. We're talking spending all this time talking about the 26 acres really has no bearing on what the whole it's a separate parcel.

Right. We we did hear though I want to honor what the um applicant has said in bringing in their evidence. So, we wanted something directly from the division to provide to you today. Um, and so we're bringing this forward as information that we have, but as I mentioned in the staff report that we limited amount of time of evidence coming in on Friday, um, Jeff's out today. I think he returns tomorrow. Was automatic email respect from the division on that. Um all the information on the DWR site indicates that um it it is handled differently than exempt parcels.

Do you or or parcels under 35 acres that either go through subdivision or have this exemption that allows them to be exempt from subdivision regulations? Would it change potentially change the consumptive use allowance? Yeah. whatever their estimates are. Um, you know, these guidelines may be very similar guidelines for them to establish consumptive use straight across the board. It's just whether or not this is the type of permit that would be allowed something different. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Would you like to respond to that? Anything you'd like to add to that? arguing different things perhaps, if I'm understanding this correctly, staff is saying that forms 57 doesn't apply to our 64 acres. I am providing that having had a conversation with DWR. I don't have that in writing from an email from DWR that it does apply because it is a commercial exempt well. is not exempt in the fact that it is a under 35 acre parcel but this is what this is for. So I'm confident that DWR would respond and say that form 57 and 45 both as I have been instructed apply to our 64 acre parcel and our 26 acre parcel. Um, should we choose to get a well on our 26 acre parcel, the additional information that we need is the county as the jurisdiction authorizing and verifying that we do have a subdivided 91 acre parcel and this 26 acres should also be eligible for this commercial except as well.

I'm curious how this fares on

and what we're what we're weighing here. I mean, we're we're trying to weigh whether you can get water, whether there's enough, and we're talking about 26 acres. I'm confused kind of confused about why we're talking the 65 acres. If I heard correctly, one of the stipulations was that there was no pre-existing well and there's no structure. Is that what DWR was saying to you guys? There's no I think the confusion is that the name of this well would be a commercial exempt well whether or not it's a par a parcel above 35 acres or below 35 acres it is still called a commercial exam as well.

Okay. But the the point is you get water how much can you get? Is it enough to run your campground, run your nightly visits and run the wastewater treatment system? No. No. Because the limit because we don't have a well put to prior beneficial use on the property. So, this would be a new well. So, there should be two paragraphs that you have there that say not not no well, new well, no water consumptive use before 72. Yeah. 472. That is what we would be. The limitation is 108,600 gallons a year.

And I think and that we could possibly augment that. So we would have to go through augmentation, possibly purchase more shares, water shares, and try and augment that use. It's possible to get the well. So I don't think we can use that. We're in the question phase here. I have no more questions. We might have them in a second, but for now, no more questions. We can reopen after Exactly. after we close. We might hear from me again. Andy, do you have any more questions for now?

Um I think when I was speaking a little out of order was kind of where my head is at on this. Just then I'm going to move to close the evidentiary portion again. I don't second that to a vote.

I So the evidence portion is now closed. We will move on to uh sorry portion of the hearing is now closed and now we can discuss right this discussion portion. Mhm. Okay. This is the discussion portion and I guess this is just for us. And are we allowed to ask staff questions?

I think generally when you close the evidence, you close the evidence. Close the evidence. If you're if you're asking sort of clarifying questions about the evidence is one thing. If you're But it's it's hard to draw that line. Sure. Versus a clarification versus introducing new evidence. And what about asking you specific legal questions? Is that better be done at a later time?

Well, it would depend on the question. You know, if if it's sort of procedural stuff, I'm sure probably happy to answer it. If you want specific legal advice, I think we probably need to have an executive session. Well, Matt was nice enough to uh look at this in depth and give us a few options. And what sticks out to me is what I said in the previous meeting was that it opens this up to some liability of people just like you that want to do this and we can't meet that statutory regulation of of approval of a variance because you don't feel like the burden of proof is strong enough. And so, and I'll just say again, I, you know, I think it's great and I really would like to see you guys do this, but we don't we don't we don't want to get into legal trouble. Um, the governing legal framework is really difficult to navigate and and all the all the evidence that you presented are all on back country parcels. So, I don't think we did anything wrong in approving those variances.

Um, Sterling, are you I I don't see Wait a second.

We're not talking. I'm just going to ask you to please be quiet. And it's hard for us to discuss when when you all are talking amongst yourselves. If you want to step out and talk, you can do that. But it's hard for us. and and if you know if you don't want to listen to us, it's hard for you to hear us when you're talking among yourself. So like to maintain some order. So I mean I could go through some of these or we could share the legal framework with you but basically I'm concerned about our liability just as I was in previous meeting. Um the water is a is a new thing but you know I I'd like to see the regulations change. Instead of us trying to bend over backwards to make this happen, I'd like to focus on changing the regulations, which we could do in the upcoming code uh adoption. We could change these and get some boundaries around these kind of projects because we need them. We want them. We won't want to get sued. We don't want to get overturned by the courts. We don't want other people coming in and saying, "You did it for those guys. Now, how dare you not do it for us? This is a very similar project." So, that's my position then. And it's and that's my position now that uh we don't want to get, you know, we don't we can't be inconsistent. As much as we want to do that, as much as I'd like to say yes,

I I don't think I can.

And you've been pretty quiet. You want to share just your thoughts, either? Um, I felt like we were down to the WTS and I feel like with what I have in front of me, it does come down to making an explicit factual determination regarding whether the property can accommodate a conforming OWTS. And to me, accommodate sounds like it it doesn't because there's environmental risks. There's more problems with a conforming OWTS that we had uh public testimony on during the last public meeting that strongly convinced me that a conforming OWTS OTS on this property was really not a good idea. But not only that, that there was some legitimate risks involved with it. I think Tamara also touched on that. So, this does not feel like um it it feels like we should be able to figure this out without exposing ourselves to too much risk. I'm a little frustrated with why we can't. I do understand we need to be very clear and concise in our decision making and that it needs to follow these codes that we're you know we have in front of us and you know given those I do I personally sitting in this chair feel like uh it's my belief that the conforming at WTS is more problematic than the all privies.

Well, there's problems with everybody's system. Everybody's system can fail. Second homeowner systems can fail. Um, under regulation 43.4N5 establishes mandatory limits on the board of health's authority. If any prohibition applies and the applicant has failed to establish why it does not apply, the board may be exceeding its juris jurisdiction in abusing its authority by granting the variance. Andy can ask a quick question. M

I I have been grateful for this time between the first hearing and the second hearing or whatever continuence of the hearing because it's been important for me to be able to like reflect understand our our constraints laws that we have to follow our role as board of health versus our other roles in these seats. And I agree. I'd love to be able to make this work. My question for you is it sounds like to me what you're saying is that the use of the site can't accommodate an onsite water treatment system. How is it that the site cannot accommodate an onsite water treatment system? The location of this site in my opinion is a lot different, a lot more sensitive being right there on the creek if there are failures, which you know, we've listened to why BTS system doesn't really make sense in this spot. And I agree with I agree with all of it. Why it doesn't make sense right there. And the idea of a failure in that spot in that area just seems like a lot more problematic than somewhere not next to a high like a prized natural resource area that this county on the river right there just it seems like there's a little bit of an exception to this property compared to something on a up on a dry hill in that country. So to me, I don't think the risk of another WTS system failing in this spot that seems hugely immensely more problematic to me than an OTS failing up on a dry south facing Pine Hill or wherever you know some of the other

places we can prove. So

I think the question is not that if it should we should make them do it or not. It's if the legal question is if they can do it and I don't think it's been proven that they can't. Not that it should. So my statement is that we should make it legal so that they can do it because I think we all agree it's a great idea. It shouldn't really shouldn't have they shouldn't be required to do the system. The vault toilets obviously it's an obvious better system in this case. Every Forest Service campground has one. They're up at the soccer field. It's pretty obvious that it'd be a way better system, but but we're not talking about it. It should be. We're talking about, you know, can it the legal question, can it accommodate it or not?

Well, then I we're going to get into the definition of of the perception of accommodate versus what can be done. And really, you know, anything can be done with enough money and enough time and resources. There's no, you know, we're we're we're just accommodate versus what can be done is there's really a lot of gray area in there. And that's where I think we're are trying to dance our way through the margins of

Wow. I kind of I'm reading it really differently. I mean I I agree with Matt like like the the the default of our code should be that this is allowed based on what the applicant is proposing but it's not and so the number one and hence the mortorium blah blah blah the number one like you only have four criteria for a variance this is not the default this is the saying hey this is the one way one time we're going to say no you don't have to do this our code says you have to do We're saying you don't have to do this because you meet these four things. Like that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about should the code be different and accommodate. Like that's why I think it's important to say can can the site get all of the things necessary to have an on white on site water treatment system? Like if this were a residence, could the site accommodate an onsite water struggle with this water treatment system? Could it accommodate that if it was a residence? This land?

Again, I'm I'm just trying to point out that any site that we have already approved vault toilets on potentially could can depends on your how much money, time, resources you're going to pour into a property. anything can be done. But Andy, but also to the point of creating precedent, like next door, if somebody buys a big lot next door and they're like, "Hey, we want to do um 300 sites and we want to do vault, toilets, whatever." You guys said that this applicant can do it. Why can't we?

We're going to have a whole another list of criteria for that. And if they don't check all the boxes, then they don't get the same boxes unless it's the same boxes,

but it'll be a different property. It won't be the same situation. You know, this is we're taking things on a case by case scenario here. And I feel like we're getting bogged down in this minutia and detail and it feels like we're in this gray area. I don't know why we're we all see something that should happen and we're taking a really conservative attack on this gray area that feels to be like to me I'm not speaking for the poor. I'm just saying this feels like feels like a slam dunk to me. And I'm I really don't think that our like exposure risk is going to be the same for every single person that comes in this room has the testimony, has the presentation on record, the evidence that they've got that I've seen tells me that this site checks all the boxes for me. That's where I'm at. And I think, you know, if we disagree, we disagree. I just it just seems like the ability for this like to accommodate no WTS feels a little beyond reasonable. It feels like it's a it's a it's a stretch more of a stretch than um you know I guess you know I'm not going to stumble over my words anymore. It feels like this should be as controversial to me as I think it it is in our conversations. But that's just me.

I don't think I don't think that the the like value of this project is controversial in any way. No, I'm just saying the idea that it can't support an OWTS, it's accommodating for an OWTS. And how do you think that it can't?

I think that we heard enough on record, public testimony in the reports, all the evidence presented shows me that no WTS is extremely problematic in this area. Something that is a serious environmental concern to me does not fall under the definition of accommodating. So, I have serious concerns that no WTS is more of a problem here than a vault privy, which doesn't mean that no WTS to me this property accommodates it. It seems like it's a problem to put one there. So, because of the use of the property, because of the evidence that we've been presented,

because of the use of the property, do you see the difference? It's like because of the way that they're proposing the property be used, then what you're arguing is that it can't accommodate. But if it were a different use, that property could potentially you're saying this place should never ever under any circumstances have an on-site water treatment system. Okay. Yeah. I guess in that sense, yeah, it's not being used in the coldest months of the winter when there are going to be problems. It's not being there's no structure there to house the sensitive components that are going to be needed.

I mean, you would obviously you would build some sort of structure that would warm your pipes. I currently don't see any house or any large structure in the plans. No, I'm just saying but you would if you were to build a toilet that was warm like at the community field. That's not an on white onite water treatment. No, that's that's a wall toilet at the soccer groups. The community field. Community field. It's not a toilet. Which which toilet are you talking about? The ones to the playground. Next to the playground. That's That's another golf toilet. Yeah. Oh, it's probably connected to the sewer system. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, I'm just saying you'd warm it, but it's not apples to apples. You know, that's why we're sitting here is because we get these cases where every property is unique. Every location is different, and they all have different needs, and we have to weigh what we know of these properties, you know, the the risks that are involved with with failure. You know, if a failure happens next to a playground, that's pretty bad. If a failure happens in a sensitive watershed area then you know there's other there's a whole different set of concerns I have with that the

yeah I guess I guess maybe sorry don't interrupt you go ahead

um the industry the the statement from the industry person who works in that industry is like really illuminating for me about the problems presented with the OWTS in this situation in this property. I felt like that was important and I think that was you and I wish I could pull that up on a recording from the last meeting and we play that right now. But that to me was almost in itself enough reason not to. But I think there's there's a handful of reasons for me personally sitting in this chair, not speaking for the entire board, but why I see it that this property doesn't accommodate the OWTS.

Matt, would it be appropriate for me to read portions of your legal opinion? No. Okay. For you not to do that. Yes. Not your opinion, but you you laid out I think if you guys want to get legal advice, we should recess to an executive session.

Okay. I would like to just reiterate that approving this open us up to litigation also opens us up to people right next door saying you did it for them and now you have to do it for me and if you don't do it for me we'll see you in court and it just places liability on the county that opens us up to litigation and I think the path forward is to change the code not bend over backwards for this project. When you say right next door, do you mean like next door here or next door to them?

Next door to them. Right next door. There's I'm sure there's several parcels. Maybe that whole area should be campgrounds. Now, their parcel is probably the last one that can get electricity. Like Sterling said, you could do an OWTS with solar panels and battery systems. So all I'm saying is that we have to protect the county and we have to do what's in the best interest of the county and we also want to do what's in the best interest of the community and our constituents and in this case I just think that we need to change the rules and maybe that takes us to the end of the moratorum and in the summer they come back and we say we're happy to tell you the rules have been changed. We put a bunch of parameters around it including where these can be, what the zoning is, how many people per night and and then who our city will say.

I mean Andy, I got to say having worked at Outward Bound, similar area, similar topography, similar um environmental concerns. It's like right on Rock Creek. The And it's not used year round. water treatment plant like like uh we used on-site water treatment systems and so I know that they're possible and the area can accommodate and I haven't gotten the just want you to know I have not gotten the evidence to show that water and electric can't be gotten to the site that would support I hear your argument argument. I think this is one of the ways in which government can be really BS and I don't like upholding these systems, but this is the role I'm playing right now. And currently I can't I can't say that it doesn't the site does not accommodate an on-site water treatment system. The use the use might not be able to. I thought that was really well argued, but the land itself can in my opinion based on the evidence. We can keep talking about it though. Well, are either of you interested in executive session legal advice on this or to me it's cut and dry. We got we got to change the rules. I'm really sorry, but we got to change the rules. I'm not going to say it again. I've said it twice.

I agree. I don't I don't understand how I would be able to say yes to this. based on our current rules and I would like that changed as soon as possible. Let's change it immediately. And could we change that portion of or do we have to I would like to give um the moratorum the space to

you know look at um this from a countywide lens and um but but yes I I mean I think that's the basis of um bringing the moratorum forward. So I um but we can discuss that more. Um you know we can revisit the scope for moratorum and and we could frontload some of that scope of work. Um so we can we can look at that but I'd like to keep it kind of within the moratorium work to look at this holistically for all of the different uses and how we look at the infrastructure piece.

I have a staff question Matt. Should I ask to open the evidentiary? What kind of question? Uh, I'll ask you and you tell me if I'm going to open it. When we approve a variance, is that connected to the land forever? Um, or does it depend on the use of the land? Can I ask that question? I think you can ask that question.

Okay. Um, so typically like when we grant a variance on an ODWTS, you know, that typically happens pretty immediate um because there's a plan in place. When we grant a variance from a land use standpoint, we typically put that if you haven't don't exercise the right to use the variance within 3 years, it goes away because variances that run through land use are really specific to one concept design. um a variance on an OWTS is usually pending an immediate kind of structure license or a use or something such that so infrastructure variances typically happen very quickly. Um but once you put those in place then that's the infrastructure that's been allowed. Does that also

so it can kind of run with the land is what she's saying. But it does, you know, if use changed or the there was development like if you know for whatever reason it's probably never going to happen. But if Leadville sanitation comes within a certain parameter, they would have to connect. So So it's kind of but but really doesn't blend with the land forever. Great. Okay.

Okay. I'm just going to start with the easy part. I move make a motion to approve the variance request to allow composting and dry flush toilets as submitted by the applicant for 2453 CR11A and flow campground as proposed in the application. No. Yep. with the following conditions. Number one, prior to operations, the applicant shall follow shall work directly with OWTS health's specialist to ensure the Alpen flow campground composting toilets meet Colorado regulation 14 43- Oh my god. 43.12E composting toilet standards. Two, prior to operations, the applicant shall develop and provide community planning and development through the OWTS environmental health a maintenance and monitoring drug plan for the composting and or dry flush toilets. And number three, the applicant shall consider self-contained hand washing stations to divert waste water from discharging onto the ground. We'll second that. Sorry. And further find it consistent with Colorado regulation 43 and Lake County OWTS regulations as evidenced in the staff report dated February 19th, 2026.

Is that four? No, that was just conclusion of the statement. Um, I will second that. Before we go to a vote, let's clarify that this is just for the composting toilets on the upper portion, okay, of the camper. Just the tent sites, not the vaults. Just tent sites. Yep. Move to approve that with conditions. With conditions and you seconded talk about it for the vote. I don't I don't have anything to discuss. to your room. Hi.

Hi.

Hi. That was easy. You're right. That is easy.

Mhm. So, I did it. Andy, would you like to make a motion on the second part of that or I'll call for a motion as a

I would call for a motion. I think I'd need 15 minutes of executive before I take any motions. We have to notice an executive. So, do you want to call for a recess this this meeting? A recess? Yeah. Yeah. Make a motion to recess for How long do you guys That's at least 48 hours. We have to notice it

for I know I'm just saying the recess would be I guess we could recess till tomorrow. No, we can't cuz it's we have to notice it within 24 hours. I can check that for sure. But our meeting would start at 5:30 if we can do that. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's what I need. Um, so, uh, when do we need to So, I need to make a re a motion to recess this. This isn't a postponement or a, uh, we have to recess it.

Continue. Yeah. Yeah. And that's why I'm saying 48 hours because it'll take for executive session has to be noticed, then we can't come back. And would that also give us some time to get some feedback from DWR confirming some of the things reopen the evidence you're hearing? Yeah, potentially direct staff to do that.

Um, yeah, I don't the temperature in the room doesn't make me feel like I should make a motion to approve this. Um, so I would think it'd be easier for everyone involved to just table this until we can take an executive session and we hear back from DWR. So I don't know the exact I'm going to make a motion to table this TBD and in that time schedule an executive session and see if staff can get feedback from DWR about water usage.

Awesome. I'll second that to a vote. Hi. Hi. And I have a question about if we don't um to table to date certain continue the hearing to date certain notice. So the public hearing um because yeah I mean if you wanted to continue continue the public hearing to update certain um you know you could do it seven days or out or something. I don't know what that would be. Yeah. So we have to start looking at schedule and see what's possible for the board if you're going to continue it. Otherwise, we would have to send out notices to the adjacent property owners again, repost. And

so let's let's um we have planning commission meeting next Monday at 4:00. Is that gone? Um yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, it is. Let's know the date. Certainly. I am fully booked this week.

It's too late. It's too late. Okay. How about um It's too late. It's too late for the executive session to 24 hours. Oh, I meant next Tuesday. That's what I heard next Tuesday. Sorry. You already have those other two. Yeah. Are those tomorrow? Those are tomorrow. You're right. You're right. You what about next Tuesday at 4:00? Uh, meetings all day. Monday. till 4.

Can we do it? Can we move up till 2? Can we do it at 2:00 on Monday? Does that give us what time on the 9th or or Tuesday the 10th after our work session? We're trying to figure out how fast we can hear back from DWR about some of these. My automatic response from Jeff said I think that he's going to be back in the office tomorrow. So, can we move it till Tuesday the 10th? 10 is a little better. Does that work for you guys? Tuesday the 10th. Yeah. 2 2:00 p.m. What time? Well, we have a work session until currently scheduled till 4.

Your work session only has events until about 2:30. I'm asking for 5 hours Tuesday. Okay. So, I would suggest something more around the 233 just to be sure of when the other work session. What date? Tuesday the 10th. March 10th. Tuesday. Right at the end of our work session. Yeah. It's 3:00 on the 10th. 3 3:00 on the 10th. As of now, it's open. Yes. Is that all right with you guys? 3:5.

Okay. Do you want to amend your motion? Um, instead of I will amend my motion to change to be determined that we will table this until Tuesday, March 10th at 3 p.m. Seconded to a vote. I I motion's been tabled. This concludes today's portion of the public hearing. Thank you guys. Thank you guys.

Really awesome. Oh, I need this. 10.