Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Everybody ready? Okay, everybody but me. Welcome to the February 19th meeting of the Lake County Board of Health. This is a public hearing. The Lake County Board of Health will now conduct a public hearing. The statement I am reading shall be incorporated into and made part of the record on these proceedings. The Board of Health has jurisdiction to conduct a public hearing on a variance application under Section 1.9 of the Lake County on-site wastewater treatment system regulations. The purpose of this hearing is to consider whether the variance application should be approved. In considering that matter, the Board of Health will address the criteria in Section 1.9 of the Lake County on-site wastewater treatment system regulations. and section 43.4 of Colorado regulation number 43. The procedure to be followed in this hearing will be as follows. One, members of the board will disclose any ex parte communications. Two, county staff will make an initial presentation. Three, the applicant may then make their presentation. Any other persons either supporting or opposing the applicant may present evidence. We may or may not limit that to a certain time period. Support and opposing witnesses may be questioned by the board. Once questioning is concluded, no further questioning is permitted unless granted by the chair. And then finally, the applicant may then present any rebuttal evidence. The parties and witnesses are asked 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 all comments be made to the board and that there 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 board will discuss and weigh the evidence. There will then be a motion to close the discussion phase of the public hearing. The chair of the Board of Health will entertain a motion on the application. The motion may take the form of one of the following recommendations. One, approve the applicant 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 will be in the form of finding of fact. Are there any objections to the jurisdiction of the board or to the form or substance of these proceedings?

Can I ask a question? Sure. I was curious if, as the applicant, we would have an opportunity to respond to any unique or new conditions that may be put on the application. Deliberation? Right. Specifically because there is a mention of limited occupancy that has not been a part of, or at least in the staff report, in the way it is presented for the variance that has not been a part of our conversation with staff thus far and was news to us. The question right now is could we have a chance to vote? Right. Would we have an opportunity to comment on what any unique or new condition that could be contemplated would mean to our operations?

I don't know. Anne, what do you think?

would it help Sarah to be able to talk about that during your presentation to include that within your discussion and what you're going to present and talk about the limited occupancy and the impact of that or potentially and then it can be part of the whole discussion before you close the evidentiary portion when the discussion closes so that you can have that back and forth propose it during and talk about it in your presentation, then you can be able to talk to the board and take questions about it before they close the evidentiary portion?

Yes, I would love to just be able to have a turn to take questions as the board .

Once it's closed, it's closed. Right.

Well, there's evidentiary portion, but then there's actually discussion portion, and that's where the chair has discretion to be able to open up discussion.

We do close, and so typically when we close the evidentiary, it's the end of the public discussion unless the chair grants us to reopen it.

Right, so it's up to you, Matt. Okay. It's up to you once we close the evidentiary if you want to open it back up to discussion with the applicant.

Okay. I'll probably do that since it's new to you. You're talking about the occupancy limit of note knocking 90 days consecutive or 180 days total is that what you let's not get off track well yeah yes the point is yes is that give you guys a fair trial so uh hearing no objections to the um form and substance of these proceedings i will now ask each board health member have had any ex parte communication to disclose and if so please disclose them now. Any? None. I have not discussed this application. Okay. County staff may now make their initial presentation.

Yeah I think I'm gonna lead us off and kind of get us oriented and then You know, this application is quite a bit different than the one we previously heard in the last year. So we're approaching it in a little different manner. And so I'm kind of doing the introduction. Torsten is going to explain the application, what's being proposed. And then Ann is going to speak to how it lines up with the regulations. We also have a state partner here that Ann will introduce later that's available to answer questions. So with that, I think it's important to note that this application is part of a conditional use permit. And that conditional use permit will go, will come to the Board of County Commissioners in the future. So today we have to sort of carefully walk the line about talking about the OWTS and kind of the septic issues without really getting into a lot of the detail. related to the CUP so we're going to kind of walk that line we decided you know we decided to pause the CUP to address this issue because it's a big one and it changes the design of the application so that CUP is in process and today we're just talking about the septic issues so with that I think that kind of covers the initial comments. The location is off 11A, County Road 11A, and I think you all can identify where the county gravel pit is located. And so that road extends up to the pipeline. Obviously, this is the site. It's on both sides of Half Moon Road. The location, the entrance is somewhere in the about here, you may have been on site. So that's generally the location. So we talked quite a bit about this road and the access, pretty good access. Most of you have probably been on that road, so you're pretty familiar with what we're talking about. This is the site plan. So once we get off the pipeline road onto the site, this eastern side of the property is relatively flat. It's very level. This is where the tent sites are located. So you've read about that. We will talk quite a bit about that today. And then this, you can kind of see the topo. It's very different. The west side of the property is kind of up on a bench. And you can see it's got some rolling terrain to it. And that is where the sheltered campsites are. So I'm going to turn it over to Torsten to talk more about the proposal.

The applicant is looking for variants for alternative sanitary methods for tent car sites as well as the sheltered camping sites, as seen on the site plan there. The two-part proposal will be considered separately as I describe it here. We'll start out with our tent sites, which is all of those in the green on that east portion of the property. The applicant suggests using four 1,000 gallon vault privies. in each of the two loops there. Each location will have two private bathrooms, men's and women's, each served by their own tank. At each of the locations, one utility sink without running water will be installed to serve any waste water generated by the property. It will be plumbed and directed into one of the two vault tanks at each location. The only water generator is what is hauled in by guests of the campground. The tanks will be fly and rodent tight with high water alarms to signal when the level has hit 75%. They intend to pump the tanks two to three times per year or as necessary. They will also be pumped prior to winter. We'll move on to the sheltering sites here. The applicant suggests using either composting or dry flush toilets for the sheltered sites. These will be placed in each sheltered camping site. As Melissa said there, they will be located along the west portion of the property on that elevated section. Waste will be moved by staff on a regular schedule and transported to an approved disposal facility or consolidated into a permitted vault system. They intend to have 10 sheltered sites with occupancy of around five per site with 50 tent sites in the two loops as you can see on there. We're just gonna talk quickly about applicant's proposed waste calculation. An engineer has referenced the US Forest Service in-depth and in-depth design and maintenance manual for vault toilets as a basis for the waste flow calculation. The site will not have water supplied to the vaults. The proposed calculation being quantity equals 300 days times four persons times two uses per day times the 50 sites. with the waste per use at 0.067 gallons per use. That equates to around roughly 8,000 gallons per year at the proposed use. The calculated gallons per use is not listed strictly within Regulation 43, Table 6.2. This table lists estimated design flows used for designing OWTS systems. These estimated design flows do consider water-carried fixtures. This would not apply to the system as proposed since they are not going to have any water-carried fixtures or a well present. Since there is no direct calculation methodology in state regulations, the local board of health may, at their discretion, recognize the calculations based on the US Forest Service in-depth design and maintenance manual.

I want to show the, talk a little bit about the, so this is the tent site fault privy design. And so when you're looking at the site plan, you know, this is intended for the tent sites here. And this engineering detail was prepared by 285 Engineering for the applicant.

Is there anything else, Torsten, notable in this? This just shows you the actual design at each vault location, demonstrating the two private bathrooms with two vault tanks, one per bathroom. It also kind of shows how the vaults are intended to be set up, with one of the access risers being the privy, the toilet itself, and the second access riser being outside for pumping.

We have a slide.

Just a specification summary again. Like I said, two bathroom locations, each with two 1,000 gallon vaults, four total. As Melissa said, the access to the property via County Road 11A or US Forest Service 130. No on-site water will be provided. It will be all hauled in by guests. And again, pumps two to three, times per year or as needed for that high-level focus load farming. These are examples of what the applicant is suggesting for the composting toilets. These aren't specific. They may change. That one on the left there, the Labio Waterless Potable Toilet is an example of a dry flush toilet. These are kind of similar to what you would find in a recreational vehicle where it has chemical flush instead of water. And then that is the example of the urine diverting composting toilet there. That particular one is a little more of a portable one than what we're used to using. And kind of hidden by that is the closer view of the

Well, thank you Torsten and Melissa for helping us identify the location and what the applicant's proposal is. And so I'm going to transition now and talk about how the application was reviewed consistent with the Lake County OWTS regulations. And so it's really important for us to highlight that When the regulations were adopted in Lake County, and there was the ability for jurisdictions to adopt the state regulations with amendments, but those amendments were only allowed if they were more stringent than the state regulations. And so, concerning vault privy designs, our Lake County regulations are more stringent than the state's. So Lake County considers vault privy designs as being non-conforming. That is different than the state regulation. But jurisdictions have the ability to tailor their regulations specific to their jurisdiction. So these were approved by the Board of Health at the time that they were adopted. and reviewed and approved by the state so it's just important to know that we're going to review this based on the lake county regulations but our requirements regarding vault privies are more stringent and so we consider them non-conforming and that they require a variance and then there's certain um additional items that they are subject to. Vault privies are subject to limited occupancy, meaning no more than 90 consecutive days or no more than 180 days a year. They're not allowed where a conforming OWTS system can be accommodated. So we're specifically right now just talking about the tent sites in the vault privy. And so as we were describing in the site plan, There's nothing remarkable about the topography for the tent sites. This is really the most accessible part of the parcel. It's flatter. There's not been any identified topography that would challenge the ability to put an accommodating system in there. So that's one of the first findings. These are the criteria. that we based our review on and these are our findings that we're providing you and really where we're going to eventually get with our conclusion on the application there's also consideration that it may be considered where water is not available so while um we realize this is a vacant parcel and potentially wanting to have a minimal impact maybe a desire of the applicant there's nothing been identified either in a physical constraint to the property, nor a legal ability to be able to obtain a well permit. Given the large acreage, the parcel would be able to obtain a well permit for the property. So those two items, those are some of the criteria that we've applied in coming forth with our recommendation today. Then the Lake County regulation, requires us to apply the prohibitions on granting a variance from the state regulation. So now we tie into Reg 43 with the state under our local regulation. And so those prohibitions in the staff report, we discuss them all. We give you all of the prohibitions. I'm only going to talk about and highlight A and C because those are really the ones that formed the recommendation and are the basis of our findings on the 10 sites. So the first one is, again, the redundancy around that a variance cannot be issued where the property can accommodate a conforming system. So we've talked about there's no obvious topography or access issues with the 10 sites. In addition, the state says if there's nothing obvious, the state regulation requires a professional engineering or geologists to provide evidence that this site has some type of existing condition that would limit its ability to be able to have a conforming system. There was no evidence within the application. We had no engineering basis, nor anything from a... Remarkable to the geology of the site. we don't see any site constraints or access constraints. So we're having difficulty in making a finding that it is not consistent with those criteria. In addition, this site has to be able to, the variance has to be, the burden is actually on the applicant to show that the variance is not being granted solely for an economic benefit, not for, relief from a financial burden. And so some of the items that were brought forth in the application were lack of water and electricity. So again, there's not sufficient evidence that the site can't accommodate those utilities. There was nothing brought forward about the inability to support the site with either other than suggesting that it didn't really match the concept of the plan, the development plan. and that wanting to maintain a minimal land disturbance. So there was also a suggestion that perhaps a non-conforming system might result in a more favorable environmental outcome. And so in the staff report, we kind of talk about that. We talk about comparing a conforming system with the Vault Privy proposal. And first we identify that both will require excavation. So they both require construction on site. When we compare the truck traffic, truck traffic, associated with the installation and maintenance of the site. With a conforming system, you're going to pump the system generally every three years, but the engineered design suggests that you'll be pumping every three to four times per year with the vaults. So with that increased pumping comes the chance for the site to be a little more vulnerable around toxic spills. In addition, the method of removing the waste from the vaults and the screening and the application of what it takes in order to clean the vaults when they don't have the water flow to them, it has a level of complexity to it as well. and then considering that when you are using an OWTS that affluent is getting treated and being recharged back into the watershed instead of taking the waste from the site taking it to a repository locally and then that sludge being taken out of county so You know, we just didn't see enough evidence within the application to say that the site disturbance with putting in the vault systems that need the additional maintenance that have excavation. and have the potential for environmental impact necessarily less of an environmental impact to the site. And so those are really the findings that base the conclusions and recommendations that are in the staff report based on the TEMP sites. And then we're going to shift gears a little bit here and talk about the sheltered sites. So the sheltered sites are asking for an alternative technology, being composting or dry flush toilets. And so under our regulations, anything where people live, work, or congregate is required to have a conforming OWTS. or go through a variance process for an alternative technology. So we have some redundancy here about whether or not the site can accommodate a OWTS. And we find that when we start talking about the sheltered sites and the topography associated with that location, we do see challenges. in being able to access that site and maintain that site. So then we follow and look for guidance under the state Colorado Regulation 43, which recognizes composting toilets and provides us with a set of standards. And those standards are articulated within the staff report. And what we're suggesting is if a variance was granted to allow the composting and dry flush toilets that that could be managed administratively. We could work with the applicant to ensure that those standards are being met before they install them on site. And that we didn't provide the additional standard of C in this instance because we concur with the applicant in suggesting that there are challenges in being able to accommodate a traditional or a conforming OWTS with the treatment, soil treatment area in that location. So very significantly different findings that we've applied. And then if we wanted to provide some conditions of approval around particularly the sheltered sites for the composting or dry flush, and I should probably just backtrack just for a moment. Dry flush toilets do not have articulated standards or incinerating toilets do not have articulated standards within the state regulations. So we would just suggest that allowing the applicant to go with either design and that just following the manufactured specifications and best practices for installation. align with the stain requirements of the composting toilets to make sure that they have those national testing standards. So our suggested conditions of approval would be that the applicant would work with Torsten environmentally to make sure that the composting toilet or dry flush toilets meet those articular standards. and very important for this type of oversight and maintenance of these appliances that there is a plan there needs to be identified a repository that will accept the waste we need to identify that there is such a location that will take that and then just a plan for how those are And this is a standard that we've applied in other instances of asking for applicants to give us a plan for how they maintain and monitor those. And if the vault privy were not to be approved, there's no manner on site, once that, if that's not present, to manage any of the wastewater that would be generated from hand washing or cleaning of dishes and such so we would just suggest a consideration around the applicant thinking about having some self-contained hand washing stations to divert that wastewater so it's not discharged onto the ground which isn't a direct violation of the regulations so that's the nature of the last condition of approval and I do want to, Steve Procise is here with us from CDPHE. Given the nature of the complexity of this application, typically when we have brought you variances in the past, we are doing so for very minimal, less than dwelling unit type dwellings, which is not unlike this application, except they're in remote areas with occupancies around two to maybe six people per use. and not quite as big a development as this is. So we really wanted to make sure that we were interpreting both the state regulations and just partnering with CDPHE to ensure the best outcome of staff's review. So Steve is with us here today. He is able to answer any clarifying questions in regards to Colorado Regulation 43. And the CPD staff is here to answer any questions on the local regulations that you may have. So happy to either turn it over to the applicants or answer questions that you might have at this time of staff or students.

I'm trying to visualize the vault toilets. They sometimes can come in different shapes and sizes and I'm just trying to wrap my head around two 1,000 gallon tanks for each one. Is this similar to like what maybe we'd see up at like the cook house or something like that? It goes style of outhouses. This

comparison to the cook house if the applicant has an answer to that i not i have not worked on that system so i can't answer that question probably looks like a typical service yeah that's kind of what i'm thinking the only um design we have on that and i steve is with us as well too so he may may have a little bit of a better it just to describe the system a little bit better this kind of design is closest to what

the Emerald Lake parking area. Very standard to have half of the tank very under the system. It's the difference between a vault and a vault privy. The vault is talking about the tank itself.

The privy is the toilet sitting on top of it. So similar to some of the existing stuff that we already see out there, just maybe minus the big cement block building around it.

Privy's are always required to have some sort of structure, but maybe not concrete blocks.

Questions? Okay, that concludes the staff presentation. We'll now move into applicant presentation.

I can just go from side to side. Or would you like to drive?

I'm happy to drive. I'm not sure.

It just seems like it should have been open for, like, as a slideshow. But I don't see it or see it. Is it covered by the? On the first page. Go ahead. Oh, on the first page.

Maybe hide the floating controls at the bottom. So go over to more. So close. One more down. No. It might not. Sometimes we don't have that ability.

Yeah, what about up there?

Who's got it? It's just the browser. Can you right click on it?

We'll just lose one of the presentations about the toilets.

Feel free to take the mouse and keyboard.

So you're going to try to open it in a different way. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Thank you, sir.

I don't think any of us use Google presentation very much.

Yeah, you do.

Can you click on it above there, even? Yeah, that's where we go.

It's OK. To what?

Oh, I said to Google. Right, we don't have Google. You guys aren't allowed to check Google, so.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Still open. Still open.

nice there you go sterling i'm so sorry i didn't i might have missed it but is this sharing can you go back to the zoom and make sure it's sharing i can see it okay awesome thank you

okay well thank you everyone for for being here um this is a property that you just saw a screenshot of it's uh some property details um it is 91.02 acres that has been a project in active forestry management for 25 years now. The Mudge family, we have owned it since 7-14-21. It's an easy date to remember. This is one of many pictures of our family on the property itself. The vision for Alpenflow. Alpenflow is We want it to be a unique experience contributing to economic development, leveraging our recreation, tourism, and meeting community desires clearly outlined in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. We have plans for semi-primitive and semi-developed campground experience, non-motorized trails, unique overnight stays, and tent camping. Legal basis of variance request. The purpose of Regulation 43 is to preserve the environment and protect the public health and water quality. Strict enforcement of a conventional OWTS, as suggested by CPD staff, would create a practical difficulty unrelated to financial gain. The proposed systems provide equal or greater protection of public health and water quality as similar commercial recreation uses within Lake County have shown. The request is consistent with the intent of Regulation 43 and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. These are pictures. This is a vault toilet on Lake County-owned land at the gun range with similar topography as our property, Alpenflo. The two pictures on the right are one you've already seen before. And the other one is a little more sleek and stylized version. It's the less, it's the more permanent version of the Trogolo urine diverting toilet. Alignment with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. Part of this variance request process is to look at the variances, the variance checklist. that is provided to you by staff. The first thing, number one, on this variance checklist is this statement. The request of variance is in substantial conformance with the express purposes, intents, goals, and policies of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and any ancillary county-acknowledged or adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protection, affordable housing, infrastructure management, or any area-specific community plans and the purposes set out in Section 1.4 of the Land Development Code. This proposed variance aligns with the comprehensive plan by supporting recreation and tourism while minimizing infrastructure impacts, protecting water quality, groundwater, and sensitive landscapes, encouraging low-impact development appropriate to rural and recreational areas, reducing land disturbance and preserving natural character, and minimizing water use in the Arkansas basin, which, as we all know, we're in a drought right now, so it's very important. We have a current comprehensive plan that the county is looking at right now. We are also in the process, and CPD is doing a great job drafting the next one for the next couple years. In this draft of the One Community Project, goal number one, support and grow locally owned businesses as a cherished and valuable element of our self-reliant community. Goal number two, identify and grow businesses and industries that fit our community character and values, diversify our economy, and provide jobs that sustain local people. Goal five, leverage tourism and visitors to support local business and fund quality of life amenities for locals. The proposed development or proposed campground that we are looking at at Alpenflo align with all these goals. For goal number five, one of the strategies outlined in the One Community Project is support a suite of diverse complementary local attractions, including recreational, historic, and altering arts and cultural that invite and are sustained by year-round visitation. Strategy 5D, to enhance visitor spending and lodging tax revenue, increase supply of local hotel rooms. Our practical difficulty and hardship. Vault or pit privies may be allowed, and this is Lake County OWTS Reg 1.2B3, Vault or pit privies may be allowed for limited use occupancy on a property which cannot accommodate an OWTS with soil treatment area or if the dwelling does not have running water. Limited use occupancy means the occupancy of a structure or dwelling on less than a full-time year-round basis. Alpenflow, and specifically the campgrounds that we are asking for vault toilets, Alpenflow does not have dwellings. It does not have running water, nor does it have electricity. and therefore cannot accommodate a standard OWTS system. Installing a standard OWTS system, or potentially two to properly serve the 30 and 50 sites, will disturb a larger land area than vault toilets, while offering no more protection to public health. Requiring flush toilets will cause a hardship on the environment and the local water table. The use of the tent sites will have a naturally occurring limited use season due to the lack of winter tent camping, with little to no use from November to May. This is intermittent use on a standard OWTS system, and it will cause issues such as bacteria die off, freezing of vital components, shock loading, and reduced retention time for effluents. One thing to note on the, so the time period that we have for tent camping that is comfortable in Lake County is 155 days. Just wanted to point that out.

Our year-round proposal for the tent sites would assume, we assume it would invite and market van campers, which would be significantly less occupancy than tent campers.

And in our technical justification on the engineered design, That is the max operating calculations that we have for the volumes of the calculations for the vault toilets. Naturally, that's going to be less than that because of our weather and tent camping in the winter. Hardship on the land. Purpose of Regulation 43 is to protect the environment and protects the public health and water quality. This is a picture of a standard OWTS system. That is a picture of a vault. We plan to do two vaults. So you can imagine the footprint of two vaults compared to the footprint of a standard OWTS system. Standard OWTS systems rely on water and continued use to properly treat waste. The 10 sites at Alpenflo will have neither of these conditions. To properly serve our plan 30 to 50 sites, two toilet sites are needed, requiring two septic fields. Similar to this is a hardship on the land, the environment, and the operators.

Is this a residential dwelling? A picture of a residential dwelling, which is not the occupancy that, like, it would be significantly larger.

Hardship on Lake County's water table. The toilet is the single largest user of water in a dwelling, using about 33 gallons per day, as evidenced by the table cited by Torsten earlier. It depletes the aquifer. Wells fail. Already this year, wells have dried up in Lake County. Surface water reduction and land subsidence Land subsidence causes the land to move and all those pipes for the OWTS system and recently the engineered OWTS systems in our area are low dose systems. So it requires pumps and those pumps go into small pipes that eventually if the land subsides and with the freeze thaw moving around it will cause that OWTS system to fail because things break.

We don't only also need electric to pump for the well to deliver water to a system. We need electric to create a heated environment in a pit toilet so that pipes wouldn't freeze and avoid all of those other complications.

This is just a visual of a vault toilet compared to a conventional OWTS system. Kind of standard. Existing vault toilet usage in Lake County. There are many types of vault toilets in operation in Lake County, including facilities owned and maintained by Lake County. There's two at Ski Cooper, Leadville Junction, and the newer Public Gun Range. All with equally, if not better, ability to accommodate a OWTS system. With the exception of the upper vault of Ski Cooper, all these are very similar. Alpenflo's variance request is consistent with previous variance requests that have allowed for the use of vault previews and vaults. The three most recent ones, Berger Property, Shaver, and Shiloh, the Sleep Yurts up at Tennessee Pass, Turquoise Chief Yurt, and St. Keevan Yurt up on the top of St. Keevan Hill. The majority of these properties are eligible for an exempt well or They already have one. The United States Forest Service manages 533 designated campsites in the county. All of these designated sites are served by 118 vault toilet systems. In 2025, only two of these campgrounds had water available. I know because I operate those water systems. The areas surrounding Alpenfloat place host hundreds of dispersed camping spots, and they're not served by any toilets. toilet system, except for the two campgrounds further up Halfman Road. Here's some visuals of the existing fall toilets. The top left one is Kendrick Park.

That is a Lake County facility near the golf course. It used to be flush toilets. Now it's not.

The county has in place some porta-potties there, which Porta potties technically act like vault toilets.

They hold until you pump out. That's the general gist of a vault toilet.

Leadville Junction, highly used recreational place. Open during the winter time. CMC, it's a newer one. And the county gun range up there. Beautiful flat topography. On the map, there's a visual of the vaults that we're talking about.

Recreational.

Recreational. Just a good visual.

Do you want to speak to the Forest Service thing that you have on there? Sorry, on the Kendrick Park, they used to be flush toilets, and that was unmanageable to maintain for various reasons. as well as the Forest Service toilet systems.

So at Turquoise Lake, that used to be all water and wastewater. They used to treat their wastewater system, or run a wastewater system. That wasn't feasible for them due to the seasonality of the system. So they changed over to strictly ball toilet usage. And just to point out, the majority of those campgrounds, 533 sites mentioned, they are, once rec.gov opens up, those campsites are booked. Sheltered site toilets. So we just wanted to, these are quick 45 second videos to show what these toilets that we are proposing on using look like in case

In case you haven't seen it.

The separating insert is made of a durable synthetic material and ensures that the liquid components are separated from the solid components.

This means your urine flows into the front area here. Feces and toilet paper end up back here.

Here you can see a separating insert built into a trogolo. As it is perfectly adapted to the human anatomy, the separation is achieved in a natural way without any body contact.

We hope we can help you with this video. See you soon. I'm Alfie.

And I'm Patrick. So that's an example of a urine diverting toilet.

Where are they from? I don't know. That was cute. Where does the urine go? Yeah, I'll ask that question.

The urine goes into a... a canister that you then dispose of properly. And same with the feces in the back.

They have this incredible portable toilet, perfect for camping, RVs, caravaning, or anything off grid. Watch this.

Using a patented mylar bagging system with a fan and a vacuum

This toilet instantly wraps your waste and the smell at the push of a button. There are no chemicals, no smell, and nothing to install like wires, vents, or plumbing. You can set this electric toilet up anywhere in under a minute and you are literally good to go. Welcome to Labio by Dry Flush, a game changer in portable toileting.

So that toilet is an example of something easy for staff to manage waste at the sheltered sites for both of them staff would be in charge of disposing of properly um after after the guests check out um

So before we go through this a little bit, I guess we definitely just want to kind of re-emphasize that in response to Seth's report, that you all have the discretion to determine what is accommodating to a site or what a site can accommodate. You've done that before in other variances, and appropriately so, we would definitely agree. All those are values and opinions that have been presented to you that you then make determinations on. We are asking that you consider our level of accommodations that we do not have and consider the comprehensive planning, or the comprehensive plan, sorry, and use this as an opportunity to help us create a business that enhances and benefits the community in all the movies that we've presented to you. Another thing, a little more specifically, staff stated that the application did not acknowledge that vault privies are granted to limited occupancy sites, and spoke to that a little bit at the beginning of her presentation. We want to point out that this criteria, this area, That is being pointed to and cited in 1.2 that is the scope and purpose, which we read as a summary and has not been pointed out to us in particular before we saw the staff report on Friday. Before I go into detail in looking at this and having read this, we do want to point out that it says the vault or crib privies may be allowed for limited use occupancy on a property which cannot accommodate an OWT as a soil treatment area or if the dwelling does not have running water, which we also included in here. But we want to emphasize that the local regulation then goes on to say limited use occupancy means the occupancy of a structure or dwelling, which again, we do not have structures or dwellings at our campsites. We are not talking about enhancing public safety risk by proposing devolved toilet systems in our campgrounds. I have other things to state about, you know, Ann also kept referring back to the state regulation and we would assert that it is not clear based on the format of the local regulation that this actually replaces Uh, all of C3 where, uh, there are some seems conflated or, or combined, like the statement that Anne cites is C4312C3B. Wait, pause. Yes. Let me find that. I can give you a printed out version.

None of you have it in front of me. I just want to find it.

Give her the number again.

C4312C3B. And while you're looking for that, perhaps because Anne also did make a mention of why this was adopted in 2018, I was in your seat in 2018. And I will let you know that the conversation was very much about dwellings and residential concerns and existing cabins and a change that we were anticipating into people utilizing their homes and their residences for short-term rentals and what that would mean with certain conditions where we saw or the county knows and sees that some housing residences have, might have a privy. I would contest that we did not talk about recreation applications for involved privies at all. And I think that it is clear in the state regulation 4312C that you have in front of you that there are various opportunities that the state offers for full-time uses or limited uses, including C3E that variances may be granted for specialized commercial uses. So I wanted to point that out as decision makers so that you felt you weren't given the impression that we are going against an overall or an overwhelming encouragement by the state to actually prohibit bulk toilets altogether. There are many different circumstances in which the state contemplates why and how a local jurisdiction or any should consider allowing for those uses.

Another thing we wanted to point out before we conclude our presentation is looking back at the site plan.

We envision 30 to 50 campsites and also 10 group shelters. that the numbers that we are proposing are 250 people. Total, between the two. So we just wanted to share that with you.

I'm so sorry, say that again, I was writing.

I'd like to also, I guess, point out that through this process, again, that citing or pointing specifically to these sentences, because it's new for us in the staff report, as well as any conversation or recommendation that an approval of this should be limited to current code. Our conversation with staff since the beginning of our submission and conversations started out as, we want to do a campground, but we know it doesn't quite fit, and the regulations isn't county code, sorry. doesn't currently contemplate what the experience we are offering. Here is state regulations that offer solutions. The conversations we had first were encouraging us to apply as a private resort for reasons, then we moved to applying as a group camp, which has the limitation of 100 people. And I think that it is clear by not on the other presentation, but I believe that the experience of many of us, perhaps not all of us in the room might have in campgrounds, like we have the space, the 91 acres, to host a number of people on campgrounds. The current code, though it points to a modern experience, offers 25 campsites per acre, which is in our opinion, way too much for the experience that we want to offer. And for other reference, Sugarloaf Inn, according to their map on their website, have 86 campsites. An average of four people at those campsites. I think that's what, 364 or 44 people. That's about on 12 acres. So we don't believe that the occupancy level, as far as a management standpoint, really is an issue when we're talking about the property that we are working with. There you go.

Oh, you want to watch that again? Check it.

In conclusion, we request that the Board of Health

proves both of our requests based on Alpenflo's alignment with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, the engineer design provided, and the proposal's consistency with Colorado Regulation 43. This plan aligns with the Comprehensive Plan, both new and old, meets regulation intent and purpose, protects public health, protects the environment, and uses proven technology and industry standards practice in and around Lake County. So, thank you.

Thank you. That concludes the applicant presentation portion of this public hearing. We will now move to public comment. If you can direct your comments to the board, please.

Anybody in here?

Can you just raise your hand? Zach? I'm Zach Zeller, and I'm local here to Leadville.

I've lived here for five years. And I'll kind of go in a little bit of my background.

so you all have an idea of where I'm coming from on this. I've got a fairly vast background. I was in the fire service, retired from it for 20 years, structure fire, and have worked in commercial residential building construction, raised work in farm and ranch type work, have been heavily into equipment, and in Leadville, I run Pine Mountain Land Management. and I do septic work as well as wide excavating landscape and end up in this environment vision. I've worked for the Arkansas River Watershed as a mitigation specialist and like water runoff specialist. So I have some background in how our valley works running down the Pueblo with all the water and all the fire. I'm here to support Sterling's variance proposal for the vault. From my background, like hands-on doing this work, and I went deep into learning how our septics work here in Lake County. I also work in other states, have put septics in in other states as well. I'm pro-regulation for septic work.

Don't anybody in here take me wrong. Like, we need it. We have to have it. It's a great thing.

But something that a lot of people probably never see is with our OWTS system, especially our dosing system where we have the pump in the tank, a lot of people don't get to see or hear about the problem with that. So we live in the continental divide, super rocky soil. With these dosing systems, the pipe coming out of the discharge side, the septic is very small, inch and a quarter, inch and a half pipe.

With any sort of ground movement settling, that pipe breaks super easy. We see it all the time. It's very common. Also, we see it freeze on the discharge side a lot. The house is getting lived in in Lake County through the winter with that warm water coming out of the house into our tanks. That keeps it warmed up, and most of them work pretty good. We still see some that freeze on the discharge side. We still see some.

But ones that get shut down in the winter, we see with our rental houses and a lot of things like that and places where second homes that don't stay there, we see them freeze and break. The things that people don't understand about this that don't have their hands on it is we don't have that many people in Lake County.

So we're not putting in a ton of systems, right?

Our engineering, a lot of our engineering is coming out of sliding.

Mountain Engineering, they're all super, super great people, super knowledgeable. But our dosing systems with the pumps, those are designed more for front range type elevation, maybe up to Salida.

Once we get to Leadville, we see a different challenge. Like we have some weaknesses in that.

Super rocky, our soil shifting, our soil compacts different. We see the cold weather, our ground freezes here eight foot deep. Right, that's why our water lines are that deep.

Our ground freezes here, so if you have a system that's holding water in that septic tank, and that tank's four foot deep, and it's not getting used, everybody can see it's probably gonna freeze. It's hard on things when they freeze like that.

So we see a lot of that.

I've talked to multiple of the civil engineers on issues that I've seen as an installer, and a lot of them are like, I've never heard that. These guys are in the office. They're not out looking at their projects. They'd like to be, but they can't be. So up here in Lake County, we've got a challenge with these OWTS systems to begin with. I say that in context to where Sterling is at with this.

Environmentally, no question.

Like vault toilet. Vault toilet, even with the guys with the cuckoo wagons sucking them all out. Could there be a couple drops? hit the ground, yes, they're paying. But with dosing systems, we have a filter down that tank. That filter has to be pulled out and washed off once a year. You're supposed to wash them off down in there. You're getting fluid on the ground. This is residential even. It's supposed to be washed out. If you watch the guys suck the tanks out, they're clean. I don't really see much difference there. What we do see with these dosing systems is where we would generally would have went longer pumping out a regular tank at our home, three years, five years, the reality of it is these filters are so fine in the holes in our drainage fields, this pipe with an eighth inch diameter holes in them where this effluent shoots out, you really need to got a house full of girls like what I do, I suck mine out every year. And you can talk to the guys that are sucking the tanks out and stuff like that and they'll all take it. So there's maintenance that costs the land owner money with these OWC sucking the bolt out when it needs sucked out. There's no electricity, there's no power going to it. It's not freezing and you don't have to use water. Our water here is a really big deal in the West in general. We all know that and it's going to get bigger. And in Colorado, most of us are pretty environmentally conscious. We don't need to be using more electric and more water. We need to be using less. I really wish our systems would technologically advance. Even the OWS systems, they're complicated for what they are, but I think there's a lot of ways to make them better. It will be something that Lakeville as a county will deal with in the near future. These systems are not gonna last with that. Environmentally on that side, there's no question that all toilets are superior. There's no question. We've all seen it for years. They've been there. We suck them out. A few miles up the road, we have our sanitation. It gets pitched out there. And gets worked with like the rest of the county gets worked with.

Okay, Zach. Thank you.

Thank you, we appreciate it.

That's good information. So it's well done, way over time.

You didn't give him the time.

No, I'm not gonna enforce the time.

I'm just letting you know how much he spent so you can make sure that everybody else gets some work.

So you have six minutes and 42 seconds. There's an online. Okay, let's do the room first. Anybody else in the room?

So I'm representing the EDC today and just kind of want to highlight some things that we've heard in the board. I think first up I want to name we're in an amazing process right now. We are in a growth spurt with a lot of challenges. We're in this OCP project where lots of things are surfacing. I'm learning a ton. We're all learning a ton about why code and land use regulation is written the way it is with sometimes the flexibility to adjust as things adjust in our current makeup. We didn't have Campground code specifically, we don't have that piece. That's part of what's causing us to be sitting here having this conversation. If we looked at the RV and campground code, you would see something different than what's on our group team. So we're here trying to figure out how do we move forward within the boundaries of what we have. From my seat, from the EDC, kind of the voice of the EDC right now, as we move through the economy strategy, so that's our task force and kind of our responsibility, the emerging goals that Sterling pointed to are really critical. As we think about number one, support and grow locally owned business is a cherished and valuable element of our self-reliant community. As I think about that, that's coming up in a lot of places in our conversations. How do we produce a self-reliant community? So what's our responsibility as decision makers, as leaders, as business for the EDC? What's our responsibility to support business to be able to sustain and be viable and actually be not hitting hardship that's unexpected or that we can be aware of? We are looking at if we force a flush toilet system with a campground with no dwellings, as it's written in the code, we are potentially forcing a situation that could have undue hardship in the winter. They're not going to be functioning. It's not a year-round location. It doesn't have buildings and structures year-round at this time. So thinking about that, what's our responsibility in terms of how we set them up for success? We need lodging. There's just no argument about it. We're sending over 80% of our folks in our peak days, one direction or the other, but it's certainly in here and it certainly is in keeping those footsteps in our stores, spending dollars. You know about it, everybody in the room knows about it right now with our businesses, super impacted. What is our responsibility to make sure that we're setting businesses up for success? Goal number one that's emerging from our community and aligning with our community values is to make sure we are sure as heck supporting our local business, cherishing them, and creating self-reliance, that self-reliant component is about who's not gonna bail us out later, right? How are we setting people up? This version with the vault toilets is super self-reliant. It sets them up for success. It's manageable in negative 20 degree weather, where if you don't have folks in those places and you don't have heat and electricity and water, this is the point of that, right? But on the flip side, what are we causing to happen? So I'll move on, because I think we only have two minutes left at this point. You have four minutes left. I think we're done. So we've got also goal five, leverage tourism and visitors to support local business and fund quality of life amenities for locals. Five B is support a suite of diverse complementary local attractions, including a recreational, historic, and arts and culture, et cetera, et cetera. Another critical component of how are we diversifying our income streams? How are we making sure that we're increasing our inventory for lodging that does keep folks here? Again, how are we setting folks up? these are emerging goals right now we have a huge responsibility and also an opportunity to show up and act on what we are doing in these 18 months of work we hear from our community often we hear a lot of talk but we don't see a lot of action here's an opportunity for us to take these emerging goals and be very active in those goals at this moment I already named it enhanced visitor spending and lodging tax revenue getting them to stay here we've known this at least since 1982 that the goal is to keep here so they're spending dollars in their county that not only adds to our tax revenue but our retail stores our restaurants and all of our other businesses and keeps those services in our county how do we make that sustainable again critically important that we have pathways that our businesses can operate we are not bail we are not Breckenridge our community is telling us we do not want to be that we don't want resorts with fancy amenities we want things that align with our values What these two are proposing aligns very much with our values currently. It also strikes that balance of the tension that we have around adding lodging that doesn't fit what the community wants. So this is a critical balance where we have an opportunity to get behind and steward it. We're sitting here without the code to 100%, just move forward. So we're trying to figure out how to navigate it. And in that light, I know staff has had a challenge in trying to figure this out as well, and I think has done an amazing job of trying to navigate that, but at the same time, One of the things they point to is the well permit component. And we recognize that many of these locations that were named have either have a well permit already or access to a well permit. So we would just propose as the EDC is that what we want to use as a decision making criteria is a well permit right now. Is that a good criteria when we already have some existing locations with well toilets that also have well permits? So just thinking about these things as we're Moving forward, we're sitting in a place with some flexibility to think about what is right for us, what matches our community values, what matches where we want to go, what gets us more lodging and more opportunity. We've got two humans with decades of experience in outdoor rec, experiential education, managing people in the backcountry. If we can learn from anybody doing this, but also I just want to sort of highlight that component. This is not somebody proposing a plan that doesn't have something to back it up. I think those are my, how many minutes do I have left?

You have about one minute left.

Those are my big things. I think it's, you know, it's on us to think about what are best practices? How do we move forward in a way that really supports our businesses to thrive? That's my big piece for being here. And thinking about what's sustainable, what is our role and responsibility when we think about winter, negative 20, did we force a flush toilet system in a non-urban interface environment? Does it make sense?

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Anybody online like to make a comment?

Just unmute yourself or raise your hand.

Bill, are you online? With us, Bill.

Do you speak?

No, he's on mute. Billy, if you're there, you're on mute.

He's still there.

Did you text him? Can you see the phone? Yeah, it's my phone.

It's on the bottom. Oh, I see it. It's the only other person. You can either tell us who he is or have him change his name so we can make sure that we capture it in record. That's both of y'all, isn't it?

Okay, found it.

You don't mind just telling us who you are, please. I'm unmuted. Can you hear? Yes, we can hear you finally.

Just state your name please.

Sounds not coming through very good. Can you hear me? Yeah, babe. Yeah, we can hear you, Bill. Can you hear us? Well, what I can add to this, I would start and say that I live with over 200 vaults working for the Forest Service. And I think probably the most important thing is to... Keep it as absolutely simple as possible. We take the waste out of the vaults and take it right straight to a treatment location. And it is the most economical. I think it's the most environmental, and it puts it in the hands of the people that know what they're doing. And I don't know how many tens of thousands of gallons of waste we deal with a year, probably maybe 100,000. And the space that we take up, the way that we can integrate into the terrain with a small vault and just a toilet with a riser has been extremely successful for us and I think probably most of the Forest Service and National Park locations all over the country. And We have a very small footprint and it's simple to have somebody come in and a hose goes into the vault and nothing drips or gets away from us. And in my knowledge of the seven years of being responsible for dealing with all these vaults, it's just a very, very simple operation. Any questions?

No, just tell us your name, Bill. Yeah, Bill Stroud.

Bill Stroud, okay.

All right, thank you. Anybody else like to make a public comment online or in the room? My script says the applicant would have an opportunity for rebuttal. There's nothing to rebut because it was all. But I'll give you the opportunity for rebuttal.

I don't have anything to rebut against anything said. I just didn't quite finish a thought that I had made at the end of our presentation, and we'll have the opportunity to do that, regarding the occupancy numbers. The conversations that we've been having with CP staff is that agreeing on the 250 number and working with the group camp Code to increase that from 100 because it you know our conversations included that not really contemplating areas of these large parcels that could accommodate something more so I just wanted to share that the conversations we've been having have seemed or at least they've not given us an indication of great concern over that 250 number before seeing this staff report and as what we would continue to pursue.

Sorry, just clarification. Do you mean that your impression was that you were getting a variance on increasing the number past 100 due to group camp? No, I misunderstood your statement.

I guess I'm just noting that or emphasizing that our limitation and our max number that we are presenting is above the current group camp code.

Yeah.

Yes.

No, we get that.

OK. Thank you. Which I did not anticipate discussing at great length here. Okay.

I don't think there's nowhere in the staff report that talks about that.

It does allude to current numbers by code. It's in one of the sections of the staff report.

Might be page four.

Sorry, I didn't see any reference to the group camp. That's why I was confused.

It doesn't say group camp. It just says if the tent site variance... Wait, can you say where? Page 4 of 6 I have. Or of 8. Of 8? Well, I don't know. Maybe I just have a different format.

Just say what section, babe.

Well, it says there's multiple sections of 1.9, so this is... Under Section 1.982.

Approval of variance must be based on evidence presented by the applicant or their designation showing the variance would not be injurious to public health.

The second paragraph. I don't know how else to explain it to show you. Thank you. So this is what we printed out.

Oh, above that. Just got it.

Can you show us?

Yeah, can you please? Yeah, in a second, in a second.

Here.

Staff finding.

If the tent site variance was granted, it would be stipulated the occupancy would be restricted to what is allowable under the current Lake County regulations. And we're not talking about the land development code, we're talking about the We're not talking about land development code at all in this. Fantastic. Thank you.

One more thing to add. Bill Stroud, he works for Atenco, and those vault toilets that he's talking about, he's talking about the Lake County vault toilets. He works for the concessionaire for all the U.S. forces.

Staff would like to have an opportunity to summarize after hearing all of that. So first, we have no intention to disagree with the applicant or the public members that are in support of this. And we think that there's a real opportunity to do future work. on potentially the OWTS regulations. I think that they bring up very valid points regarding this, but what we're held to today are the regulations that we have adopted today. And so we can't always compare a Forest Service standard to our local regulations. They're not apples to apples, they're not the same. And so we really are hopeful that we're going into an opportunity to consider ways that we can review our OWTS regulations and look at them. And I think that there's been great information brought forward today that would really support the work that we're doing, particularly around the moratorium. As you know, we've been talking about that scope of work and really looking at OWTS and how do we support things. Some of the criteria that were shared are development application so great and really great information that will inform kind of concurrent work that TPD is looking to engage on from emerging goals and strategies of the new comp plan and the existing comp plan those are findings that are associated with the land use application and They're not findings that need to be made in state regulations, or excuse me, state and local regulations. So we really support a lot of the things that the applicants have provided for information. And I really think that there will be an opportunity to work on our local regulations. And I think they brought really great evidence forward for that. But just we are bound by the regulations that we have adopted in this time. And any other questions that you might have, I'm happy to answer. Or Steve, I didn't know, if you'd like to make any comment on anything that you've heard during the presentations.

Yeah, so just one of the notes, the Section 4312 that was referred to in Regulation 43,

i just want to make note that that section is considering vaults other than vault privies so that section is not applicable to this project thank you steve would you like to respond i would love to respond because that proves our point about the language in 1.2 that it is regarding dwellings because there are, that section C is vaults other than vault privies, which is on there, and section D is vault privies. And my, I think the reference that I, it wasn't D, it was B, sorry, saying that the local code, so the local code summarizes C, if I said D.

Maybe Steve would be helpful if you just spoke briefly about the relationship between the state and the local regulations, because we've had I think we've all had conversations with you about that. Do you mind summarizing your thoughts?

Sure, my position with the state is the on-site wastewater coordinator and basically my position is to do is to Mike Noce, Mgmt. i'm administer regulation 43 at the state level, and what that means is the wts act requires the state to create a regulation over on site wastewater regulation 43 considers anything under 2000 gallons per day or less. Mike Noce, Mgmt. This position works with local jurisdictions as the wts act and regulation 43 requires. all local jurisdictions and counties to adopt a regulation within one year based on the regulations the state adopted. So for example, the state just adopted revisions to Regulation 43 on June 15 of 2025. So each individual county or local jurisdiction must adopt a regulation based on that regulation that can adopt it by reference or adopt a more stringent version of it like Lake County has in the previous adoption. Regulation 43 is kind of guardrails. If you read the regulation, it is a minimum standard. If you look at plumbing codes, building codes that are locally adopted, these are the most minimum standards to be enforced. Each different county or jurisdiction has different geological challenges. They have different environmental challenges. They have different political challenges amongst other things. And so that's why the regulation is a minimum standard, and we have the allowance for more stringent aspects of the regulation to be adopted based on how the local authority wants to incorporate. Is there anything else you wanted me to speak to on that?

I don't think so. That probably takes .

Thank you, Steve.

OK. I guess we'll move on here to the seventh point here is the board can discuss and weigh the evidence. Now, are we limited to discussing and weighing evidence, or can we ask questions as well? You can ask questions.

Just talk to the applicant.

I'll make an answer. Everybody can. OK. So we'll move into that portion of this hearing, discussion and weighing of the evidence.

Maybe go one at a time. You want to start? Looking at what I have in front of me with suggested motions. This ticks off the box for number three and number four for me for an approval. Based on what I know myself and The large amount of what we've heard bags all that up. In my mind, I don't have a ton more to say that other than it was already kind of in the back of my head that it really seems like these vaults are going to be less destructive to the environment than putting in a OWTS system. The only other thing I would add is that with regarding the both privy and the waste set up on the, sorry, the dry flush composting, the sheltered sites, we all know, we've seen it firsthand, that when there's big events in this community, the lack of available camping spaces leads to a large amount of dispersed camping. I've seen more environmental impacts from dispersed camping than I believe would happen from designated, adding some designated camping sites with what seems like a pretty sensible solution. The only thing I would want more clearly defined would be where exactly are the dry composting toilet waste batches being disposed of and

I think that's about it as far as something I would like a little more clarification on. I think it was outlined in the staff report that they work with the tourist in the manufacturing.

May I offer one other order? So when you're looking at those criteria, you have to be able to find all of them positive for a motion of approval. So you have to find the site. cannot accommodate a conforming system. The variance is not solely based on an economic gain, and the variance is justified and will pose no greater risk to public health and the environment that would assist in meeting these regulations. The approval of the variance will not be injurious to the public health, water quality, or environment.

So you have to find all of those positive.

You're not choosing those two. For denial, you choose. Oh, for denial, you want more. But for a positive finding, you have to find all of those, if I just wanted to make sure that that was understood.

Can I ask two questions before we, because I have questions about that approval that I think would help us. Okay, number one, public health is here. Can I ask public health? What's up, public health? What's up? four of our approval criteria is that the variance will not be injurious to public health water quality quality or environment and i was just wondering if you could weigh in do you see that based on all the evidence that's been given that actually going with the vault versus the on water treatment system on site water treatment system um do you have a opinion about which one would be safer to public health

think i have the expertise in that area and if steve would be willing to answer that question i would feel more comfortable with his expertise steve can you weigh in yeah so i can really only speak to what's written in rig 43 in these types of hearings they're two completely different types of systems if you look at a traditional on-site wastewater system it's in the name you are dealing with on-site wastewater treatment so with those systems they require water carry fixtures, you're pulling water from that aquifer, you're returning that water to that aquifer after it's been treated through a conforming septic system. A septic tank vault, a vault privy, that is a holding tank, there's no treatment happening on site, and that is being pumped and transported to a treatment facility to be treated and returned back to the watershed at that facility. So I'd say those are the two differentiations that we can kind of speak to in Regulation 43.

okay um the second one is that sarah you are in a unique position to have been on this side of the table and just based on the evidence that you all brought um i was wondering if you feel like there is a criteria that we're missing that we should be judging this on that you wanted to see because currently we only have four and a lot of the points that you all made were not criteria that we can actually look at like the comp plan um i don't

If I have additional criteria?

Yeah, are there other criteria that we could be looking at that would help us prove this that you think that we're missing somehow? I don't think that there's additional criteria. Okay. Just wanted to double check because some of the points that you all brought up were not actually things that we can consider with this particular application.

Okay. were points from staff, like the staff report that we?

Oh, absolutely. I just mean specifically the comp plan. We can't. That's not one of the criteria that we're looking at in this application.

It's part of the variance checklist, which is part of the application process.

Got it. OK. Yeah, it's just not one of the things that we can find to meet or not meet once it gets to us. Okay, thanks.

I have a question for you about the composting dry flush toilets. The one you showed me had an electric component, but you certainly won't use those.

There's no electricity up there. It's set at 12. I don't even charge it.

And they, according to the manufacturer, the battery lasts a couple hundred flushes.

How far is the electric from that site?

nearby or miles away? There is electric. It's contested. Xcel hasn't... We reached out years ago and they said we don't have a line there.

It's right on the edge of Sangre de Cristo and Xcel.

It is Xcel because you can read Xcel energy on the meter.

But, yeah. So do they even have electricity at the... ACA? Not that I know of.

I'm not clear on that.

Not that we can consider that, but that's a long way off. The lack of electricity comes into criteria number one to a degree.

Well, I'm kind of confused about the process here, so I guess I'll ask you guys a question, because frankly, I think it's It's a primitive campsite. They're all over. The Forest Service runs them. I like the idea. I'm inclined to not to give up my bogey. I'm inclined to improve it. So based on this criteria, I have to say that it cannot, you know, the only thing I'm having trouble with here is the site cannot accommodate as far as OWTS because it could.

Well, and that was staff's challenge. That's why in our presentation, what we're bringing forward are only the criteria that we don't think can be met. We did bring in something about the environmental component aligning basically with what information that Steve provided. But we see the merit in the proposal generally. But what we are forced to do as your staff is apply it to the regulations that we've adopted. Should these regulations be amended at some point? Perhaps. But what we're doing today is using the regulations before us. So I totally understand what you're saying.

Just to be clear, though, we can approve this variance and basically disregard those rules

we have to make a justification for it right you'd have to have a justification and you would have to be able to find that a basis for finding the site can not accommodate a conforming system that that's that is the basis of our presentation today and where we have struggled or we've been able to take the calculations in that were presented based on a best practice we agreed with the applicant on that where the dry flush toilets came in and they're not within the regulation we concurred with the applicant there when we could see some basis for having site challenges for the sheltered sites we concurred with the application there so the only place that we are identifying that we are having and difficulty are the areas that we highlighted in the presentation. So, yeah.

Okay, Tim, this is what it all comes down to. Why can it not accommodate, we know why it shouldn't, we get that, we're on board with that, but that's not what we get to talk about today. Why can it not accommodate a conforming OWTS?

Well, because there's an OWTS that's not functioning properly. An OWTS that doesn't function is not a conforming OWTS if it's constantly breaking because it's not being used.

That's not the site. That's the use of the site.

The site has no electricity.

And it can't get electricity?

It is unknown. Okay. So, I mean, the hardship, which is also in variances but is not part of your floor, is real in an unknown time. of whether or not water or electric can be.

To me, that's the biggest component.

Obviously, you could drill a well, but getting power up there, it's a long ways away. Suppliers don't even agree on who supplies the power.

Additionally, the fact that the water, we don't have a well, and it seems like They have approved and suggested approval of a vault variance on a facility with a dwelling that has a well. Using the same criteria. Using the same criteria, the four things that you were talking about. And they suggested approval and you guys approved it.

applicant is suggesting the reason that they can't bring in a conforming system is because of no water and no electricity so we're looking at the regulation and that is one of the criteria so we're saying we don't have any evidence like they said it's inconclusive on the power but we do know that there isn't a basis so it was actually the advocate who suggested that one of the reasons that they were asking for the OWTS is that it's limited from a water and electricity standpoint. So what we were doing was saying we can't find evidence that the site cannot obtain water. So it's not that a criteria that we put against it. It was something that the applicant said, well, there is within the variance. It says if we can't get water, then we can have this. So it was actually not a standard that we're applying it's a suggestion by the applicant that based on the variance language which allows for consideration when a site cannot give water so they they were suggesting that they were in that situation and so we were looking at that we're not saying that's a criteria that we always apply

You have to follow me. Sarah would like to say something. Oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Sarah.

I'd just also like to comment that, again, the criteria set to other applications has dealt with proximity and location, saying that it would be hard to get trucks and things up there to build something. But in our minds, and again, we think all of those choices have been fine and the application of that request is appropriate. But in our minds, if it's so hard to get something up there to build something, isn't it equally as hard to get a truck up there to pump it? So that's where we feel that we're being, our land is being, our proposal is being considered differently than others. Also in regulation 43, proving the hardship is a piece of that. We've already invested a lot in this land and spent a lot of time. And we know that there's a lot of great businesses, again, going to build in that local ownership and entrepreneur spirit. There's a lot of amazing anchor businesses that have been built starting from very minimal, right? And this is the real hardship for us of the unknown timeframe and unknown expense and having to get that in place in order to start this business. When we all, I think, understand that this is not a detriment to a risk to the environment or public health. So that is where we cannot, I mean, I'm not sure what to say in fact.

The definition of accommodate is to make soon low. Accommodate is a wide-ranging word.

And we all know how long that can take for the Division of Energy Resources or Xcel Energy and projects. So we are asking for that understanding of timing and knowing that We want to start at a point and build this wisely and as our amenities and our investment allows.

Sterling, would you say the definition of accommodate is?

I mean, I totally get this. I understand that I want it to work, but we have to be able to like talk into the record why we could say that the site cannot accommodate, right? And so that's why I'm trying to talk a lot about it because the other three, it's easy to check off. And I think that in order for us to be fair and equitable in our judgment as Board of Health, we need to be able to talk into the record why we can say yes to number one. So I think that's why I'm coming back to the why, why, like how can we prove this in a way that it would hold up when other people come to us and they say, but you said this. So that's why I'm still coming back to it. It's not because I don't. agree it's because I want us to be really diligent.

Yeah it comes back to you know the phrase accommodate that looking at other and we had it in our in our presentation the county has installed their own their own vault toilets yeah on lands that is closer to electricity and has the ability to have a well that's you know

It was just a quick note about the previous variances mentioned. In said specific previous variance, they had talked about getting the liquid down, getting the waste down from there. There was not enough road access to get a pump truck up there. That was discussed in those variance hearings that the owners would have a way to get that waste down. I believe the one that's being specifically referenced, they would have put it on the owner's four-by-four high-cleanness truck to be able to get it down. Sure, yeah.

Yeah, we were a part of those. Those were relatively straightforward. Those were all very hard to access, yes.

Is this considered a backcountry location? Ag forestry. Okay.

I knew that, sorry. But as far as the

you know, accommodate, you know, there's plenty of land there to accommodate. And there's a well.

But there's no power.

And there's no possibly... On the other existing variances that were... Yeah, yeah. Okay, so if I... If I were asked...

I had to justify to Matt Hobbs when he comes back. Why is that that this place could not accommodate a WTS? I would say there's no access to power. There's been an attempt by the landowners to find power to this location, and yet they can't access it. If not, you knock on.

We don't have a tuning application. You've not gotten responses? Or no, nothing was furnished about that information?

We've never been asked about that either. Do we have any documentation of that? Like you guys reaching out to Excel or anything? Can that be submitted?

I can provide emails that I potentially have years ago, yeah.

Okay. So that would help for us to be able to say, like, yes, the applicant said and proved that they can't that there is significant hardship to get electricity there.

Are we allowed to consider the significant cost? No, it cannot be anything else. It specifically says it can't be anything else. A hardship of getting the line up there from so far away.

There'd have to be something in addition to it. It can't be though. Got it.

I'm sorry. Okay, so I'd say this, which you all could furnish us. And then also, when it comes to water, I get the environmental reasons why water is not a great thing to be accessing at that site. But how do I justify to our legal counsel that you all could not get water to the site?

Well, first and foremost, we don't have electricity to pump the water.

um yeah fair enough fair enough what's the word pressurized sure sure okay so i guess i would personally just need that um that justification about the electricity and all the other points i think are really valid but but to staff's point like this is our current code and and staff's working on a moratorium so we can tidy this up because it's clearly a mess and it doesn't actually accommodate what you all are trying to do, and I want you all to be able to do what you want to do. So anyway, that's what I would need.

I agree. I really want to approve this, but we have to look at precedent, past and future precedent.

kind of that loss here which is sterling's point the precedent has been set by us on our own land which isn't fair yeah for real that's a really good point and it's yes frankly but the the point is for us here now and i think that this process is frankly too bureaucratic to be able to like accommodate all of the considerations that this land deserves um but we haven't changed the code yet so there isn't that flexibility that i would love to see

I might just offer that some of those county examples probably predate our 2018 regulations.

Fair enough. But I just wanted to say. It's still what you see, right? Yeah.

And also precedent. I mean, future. For future, yeah. People just like them have a big property that's maybe different circumstances. But they can point to them and say, we did it for them. We expect you to do it for us. So I really think the code needs to be cleaned up I missed the last meeting. How long is the moratorium? Six months. Six months.

Well, to speak to the moratorium, we are technically in the process. We've been in the process. We submitted our first application in 2022. It has been suggested that we go through the variance process to then move on, to move our next edition of the CEP.

that we will be making to code.

Yeah, there's been a lot of research done today. Yeah, absolutely.

As Steph says, we're just bound by the regulations that we have currently.

Yeah, like I totally sympathize with staff for being bound by what you guys have identified and what we all know is stuff that we do need to work on. So that's like an unfortunate position that you guys are bound to come from. I just think what we're trying to do is look at what we could likely agree on in the room is common sense and figure out how to apply it in black and white with stuff we can back up to these criteria right here. And I think I'm comfortable with number one being lack of power, as long as we can get some kind of documentation that it's been a ridiculous fiasco trying to figure out how to get power up there. And that, for me, is good enough Criteria one, everything else is basically the same thing.

Certainly to do a continuation, I do think that I would want to just look at the continuation may be a good way to give the applicant time to... Can we just sit and think for a second before we move on to the next thing?

Site cannot accommodate Just let me think for just a second, Sarah. Sorry. You all are very familiar with it. You all and you are very familiar with this. And I've definitely read the staff report. I'm really trying to wrap my head around it. Just give me a second so I'm giving you all what you're doing. Site cannot accommodate conforming AWTS. I get that the use of the site cannot accommodate. Okay, question staff. The CUP, I know we're not talking about this, but we're going to talk about it for a second. A CUP would establish what the use of the land could be. Period. No matter who's using it, the CUP lasts forever. So if the CUP comes forth and says, hey, this is going to be a campground with this many sites as tents and this many sites as shelters, is there ever a time where the CUP comes first and then the water treatment comes second? Sometimes.

does we thought that it would be an advantage for the applicant if we could get over this hurdle because if the svp was granted we would still have to have a condition of approval that a non-conforming system would be approved right so we'd end up in the same place that we are you know right now and so to be able to go ahead and entitle the land in a meaningful way it made more sense to address the variance than to make it a condition of approval, which if it could not be met, then the CUP would be lost anyway.

I'm feeling like number one, though, is based on the CUP. Like the site in its use would not accommodate an OWTS. Whereas right now, we're just looking at the site you know, blank canvas. I just, I feel like if the CUP came first, it would be easy for me to say, yeah, this site cannot accommodate a conforming OWTS based on the use of the land.

I don't want to get too many in the details of the site plan because there will be a site plan process accompanying the CUP. So dependent upon the nature of that application, I don't want to ask too many questions right now. I do believe that it's been modified.

Just because we could do it the other way around. Right. We could bring it back to you. You know, we could bring back the CUP. And, you know, the OWTS would be a condition of approval. I think that's where you're going. I still think that maybe there are hearings that are scheduled very close to each other because there are different boards that approve these, but...

This brings up another point. Criteria number one is that when an OWTS fails, we've got contaminants leaching up to the surface.

Well, does any rip. Steve is on the line with us.

And if that were a situation at a campground where people are running around, kids are being barefoot, it seems like another, when we get into the definition of accommodate.

I think you can apply that to any OWTS.

Good, but I'm just looking at what's right in front of me. I'm just saying precedent wise, why would we say it reminds me of other boards we've sat on where we've made judgment calls based on the reason there's a board is because not everything is cookie cutter. It's not like boom, boom, boom, boom. there's the need for the board is to take these case by case and make a decision based on, you know, with the criteria and what, what is the best decision for the community, Lake County, the people and the land and the environment. And I think we're trying to do that. We just need to make the puzzle pieces fit verbally to check that box.

Yeah. And to reduce liability too, because we can like make the right decision because we're humans. but ultimately we don't want to expose ourselves to risk because we're not justifying why we approve or disapprove the criteria.

I might just add that the CUP process may not determine, for instance, the suitability of the land if the proposal that's coming forth doesn't have built structures. There are certain aspects of the site planning and the CUP process that is not going to answer some of the questions are outstanding if there's not built structures if there's not you know so what would be the need to establish power to the site so it's just just kind of trying to think it through so maybe it's better to solve it now and it's just but we could do the run process whichever way you got this was the biggest kind of harder for the applicant And so resolving this would better inform and make the conditional use permit and site planning process more efficient. So our hope was to make this get to this point. The applicants have been waiting to try to find a pathway forward through the existing regulations. And so we were hoping to get them some answers to try to support them through that. Yeah, yeah.

But I just feel like it's a little chicken and the egg. It is. Where if there was already a CUP approved for a campground, and then with the condition that the variance be awarded, then in this variance process, I would easily be able to say, yeah, this site cannot accommodate conforming conform on your OWTS.

They don't do conditional use permit processes going to do that and it's similar to like if you're pulling a building permit or you're proposing any development one of the first things that we look at is the infrastructure piece so addressing you know is this variance obtainable from an infrastructure place because when we go into the CUP one of the first things we're going to do is water sewer access and if those are not sorted out and not figured out. And they're going to remain conditions of approval that we're just kind of kicking the can down the road a bit. So we don't move forward with any vertical infrastructure or development until we have the infrastructure . So that was just the thought process behind trying to think about the infrastructure first. But we can certainly do whatever. But that was kind of the holistic way of looking at it.

Okay, so would it be appropriate to apply the condition that the CUP be granted? Is it possible to approve this with the condition that a CUP be granted for the proposed use? That is the line I'm freaking swallowing down today.

But you have to make a finding that as conditioned, you will determine. So you're suggesting the conditional use permit process will determine if the site can accommodate an OWTS?

Yes. And here's why. I'm not sure how that works. Here's why. Because we're not talking about the site alone. we are talking about the site with the use that is being approved. And I really think that it is the use that is being proposed by the applicants that determines whether the site could accommodate the conforming OWTS. Easily in my mind, a campground such as they're proposing should not have an OWTS. But right now, there is no, use attached to that land. It is just the land. So just the land can accommodate an OWTS.

All of the type of land that we're bringing forward assumes the use. This proposal does assume the use. It does illustrate the use.

It shows where it is. It describes the type of use. Well then I can easily say yes to number one. It shouldn't, based on the use, proposed use, it can't accommodate a conforming OWTS. A primitive campground should not have an OWTS.

So other than the idea that a primitive campground, which is not a use in our code, shouldn't have one, how does that equate to that the site itself cannot accommodate an OWTS?

Well how is, I don't understand Anne, where the site is being separated from the from the use. In my mind, the use determines whether this, I don't know, maybe this is because I don't have the same background, and so I am struggling as a layman to understand how the site is separate from the use. Except that I can see how the site is separate from me. Is anybody following this?

The land is always going to be there, the uses could change.

say their business plan changes they sell the land somebody wants to do something different i think that's the basis of why they separated that but the cup would follow the land so what is being brought to you today and the variance request is to put in an alternative technology for a campground so um and then they will go through and we're saying campground but they're going through the grid code don't meet what they would like to do. They feel overly onerous in the amount of infrastructure that's required in order to accommodate that. And so in working through that, we suggested that a group campaign be a better alternative to accommodate something because of the long amount of time it was taking the applicant to realize their concept. In going through this, the option is to either require a conforming system for the use as we propose to today, or to say, under our regulations, what you're proposing is not eligible for the variance for an alternative technology. What we've provided is a basis for you to make that final able to have enough evidence to say where there is not topography and there's not limited access, we can't make those same findings to get to there. But really, what's before you today, and I think it's getting really confusing because you said as decision makers, and I think if you thought that you didn't say as decision makers, maybe, as on the conditional use permit, So if sitting as a Board of Health today, you came in, you apply the Lake County OWT as regulations as proposed in the staff, as proposed by the applicant in their site plan, maybe trying to keep those lines just a little more.

Yeah, I agree. And that's a... No, I want to.

I want to. Yeah, I understand. I'm just trying to talk through why, what the difference is and what came first and why.

To me, it seems like the heart, the... The avenue to go down is the electric avenue. Maybe we table this, get some more input from Matt when he's back. And you guys, I think you, I don't know if, can they still present evidence?

So you can table, your hearing isn't closed yet. You can table your continuation on the hearing to allow enough time and what would be most appropriate is to not try to fix this right here on the spot but enough time to continue the hearing to allow the applicant to do research to be able to bring in evidence that bringing in power to the property not that it's cost prohibitive but that it can't be done and if that would aid in your decision-making

allow the applicant time to do that research and bring it in okay we're going to look at more evidence here right now yes we will but yeah well I'd just like to say again I think that Christian your solution is great and one that we were trying to point out as your great as a decision-maker to use as an interpretation I mean and just I can't remember her exact words, but just said that it can't, like it doesn't say the site cannot accommodate ever this, right? Or it cannot, like today, or it can't, like you are able to, in our argument, make that determination and that interpretation. Anne is asserting now that what she just said made me think that staff is going to support that this site can get this. sometime ever, right? Which I think is, or you can get anything with money.

I think the point is that we need evidence to show that it can't.

That's the point, is that we have to have evidence in this room. Sure, yes. No, and that's your prerogative. My point is that it can't is not actually part of, like it can't accommodate today. It can't accommodate ever. They're not included in the language. Yeah, totally. It's still a date.

It's totally... I can read it. I was wondering if you could call it a date cert. Because we don't have a standard for this, right?

The nice thing is if you do a date cert and then it doesn't have to be re-noticed, and that gives... Yeah, we've had some time to do some research and... Well, I think Candace is looking at it. This is from Claire Hott. She works for, she was the Excel design contractor for Excel.

And this is in 2021 when I reached out.

Hi Sterling, I wanted to update on

Two Trail 130, which is the address that I gave her for the proximity. We didn't have an address in time. Shelby was the one who did the address. I've come the area on GIS and believe that the transformers nearest your property are either incorrectly mapped or not mapped at all. I've been chatting with my supervisor on options to get electric to you, and based on the age of that transformer and the fact that there is nothing showing in GIS, we believe that it might be disconnected. So going under this assumption, I think that the option I can move forward with at this time is to pull from the transformer on Half Moon Road and add a transformer on your side of the creek, then pull the service from its new transformer. If you are able to send over a site plan so that I am able to find the correct distances, that would be where I need to begin. Since you know the area well, if you believe that the transformer we originally looked at is active, I can look a little further into logistics on using that.

Anything, any follow up from that?

I didn't have a site plan because nothing has been approved. Yeah, we got a problem here.

We have a real problem. I think we really want to approve this. I would really like to continue this for more information, for input with Matt, so that we don't tell you that we can do something here and then have Matt come back and go, what did you guys do? And we hired him for a reason. So if you could all look at ways to get this done, because I think all three of us here, not speaking for these guys, but generally, I think everybody in this room really wants to see it. I mean, worst case scenario, we, uh... Worst case scenario, we address this... Maybe don't worst case scenario.

We don't need to talk about it. How does Monday the 2nd look? Looks good on our end.

I just wanted, you guys are not comfortable with come to understand on the record about the electric being enough.

I think we're not comfortable just denying it.

I'm not.

I'm talking about approving it. Oh, I don't think we can.

I appreciate the evidence. If you could email that to us, that'd be great. And give us a second. Because this is not as straightforward as we want it to be. So does the Monday the 2nd work?

Pretty result for everyone. Okay.

Oh, for you guys. Oh, for this team. Yeah, I was looking at all of this. Got it. Candace, is there a different day? Yeah, I was trying to look. We don't necessarily need to be here.

We can do our presentation. Sorry, you can see. That's okay.

Who does have to be here?

That would be it. CPD. CPD, it works for us. Okay. Then we can make that work. Sorry. I'll do this now. Okay, then I am going

3.30, Candace? Yeah, and I'll make it here. Oh, sorry, does that work for you guys?

Does that work? Can we go to 3.45?

Yeah, of course.

Oh, okay.

And also, if we cannot get more information from Excel in that time, we will let you know as soon as possible. But if we don't have anything more to bring to you, I mean, I guess we show up and then we say there's nothing more and In the meantime, it would be really nice to consult with Matt and see if there's any way we can justify it without getting ourselves in trouble.

That's what I'm wondering. He looks at this and he's like, no, that's justifiable.

Just give us 10 days. Circle our wagons and make sure we can give you an answer. Okay, so 345 on Monday the 2nd.

is your question if you can't get any more evidence is that permanent right a week out with another week no i just i mean we'd like to i don't know but we'll just have to come back and chat about it yeah sorry yeah um okay i am going to move that we table um this the

Application for an on-water treatment system for 2453 County Road 11A. Applicants Sarah and Sterling Mudge, owners of Switchback LTD, to Monday the 2nd at 345. I'll second that.

Sorry, thumbs up isn't enough, is it? It's not. To vote?

Aye.

It's getting a little punchy.

You also have to vote.

Aye. Aye. table the motion is tabled or the decision is stable we'll do our best thank you guys thank you you guys wanna do you guys wanna wait yeah sure you don't wanna you don't wanna wait you want us to do our um tobacco presentation

We have a 15-minute special for the classification, but that's a pretty quick one.

We want it to be meaningful.

That's our goal.

We're not doing it just to share a box. Okay, that would be great.

I think we should back postpone it. I'm sorry. Thanks for hanging out with us.

I'd like to push this along. And I don't want to be rushed when I'm listening, tapping my foot. So let's make it meaningful at a later date.

Sounds good. We'll work on scheduling this. Thank you. Thank you.

Table that agenda item, TBD.

OK, I guess we're going to close this up for the second. And then I'll have to jump on here when we're not in this meeting to actually say anything.

The Lake County Board of Health meeting is hereby closed. It is 4-48, February 19. Thank you all.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, staff. We're going to stop recording?

I'm going to stop it.

Okay.