Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Owts Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves composting/dry‑flush toilets for Alpen Flow tent sites, continues broader OWTS variance to March 10
Summary
The Lake County board approved a limited variance to allow composting and dry‑flush toilets for the Alpen Flow tent‑site portion (2453 CR 11A) with conditions, but continued the remainder of the on‑site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) variance to March 10 to secure Division of Water Resources guidance on proposed well and consumptive‑use limits.
The Board of County Commissioners and Board of Public Health took action March 2 on parts of the continued Alpen Flow OWTS variance hearing for 2453 County Road 11A (Alpen Flow campground). Commissioners approved allowing composting and dry‑flush toilets for the tent‑site portion of the proposal with conditions, and agreed to continue the remaining variance questions — largely about water availability and whether the site can ‘accommodate’ a conforming OWTS — to March 10 at 3:00 p.m.
The hearing was a continuation from Feb. 19 and focused on newly requested evidence about electricity access and water availability. Planning and environmental health staff reviewed Excel Energy coverage maps and applicant‑provided documents, including forms GWS57 and Form 45 that applicants said were submitted following discussion with the Division of Water Resources (DWR). Staff reported the GWS57 worksheet is typically used for exempt wells on parcels under 35 acres and noted the full parcel in question is larger; staff concluded they had not found evidence that the tent‑site portion of the property could not accommodate a conforming OWTS, and so could not recommend a variance for vault privies on the basis that a conforming system is impossible.
Applicants Sarah and Sterling Mudge of Switchback Limited responded that they had consulted DWR and that a commercial‑exempt well could be pursued (they discussed pursuing a well on a subdivided ~26‑acre portion or on the 64‑acre portion) and presented water‑use calculations showing projected annual consumptive needs that, in the applicants’ estimates, could exceed typical exempt‑well allowances without augmentation. Commissioners repeatedly asked for definitive confirmation from DWR about whether the GWS57 consumptive guidance applies to the parcels and what the 108,600‑gallon per‑year threshold means for the proposed use.
The applicants also cited prior county variances on backcountry parcels and asked the board to allow alternative toilets. They pointed to a June 2025 CDPHE clarification that alternative technologies (including composting toilets and urine‑separating systems) may be appropriate in limited remote locations and said Alpen Flow would contract for removal and off‑site management of collected waste rather than composting on site.
After hearing public comment (Stuart Franco offered support for the project), the board reopened the evidentiary record to clarify subdivision and well questions with the applicants and staff, then closed evidence and entered deliberations. Commissioners debated the legal standard of whether the property can “accommodate a conforming OWTS,” environmental risks of a large OWTS adjacent to sensitive creek areas, precedent concerns and potential county liability if inconsistent decisions invite litigation. Some members urged changing the code rather than stretching the variance process; others said the evidence did not prove that water and power could not be brought to the site.
On a motion, the board approved allowing composting and dry‑flush toilets for the tent‑site portion, with conditions: compliance with Colorado Regulation 43.12E composting standards; a maintenance and monitoring plan to be submitted to Community Planning and Development and OWTS environmental health prior to operation; and consideration of self‑contained hand‑washing stations to prevent greywater discharge to the ground. The motion was limited to tent sites and the applicant is required to work with OWTS staff to meet regulation standards.
For unresolved questions about well eligibility, consumptive‑use allowances and whether the parcel(s) are considered exempt subdivisions, the board tabled the remainder of the application for further review and set the continued hearing for Tuesday, March 10 at 3:00 p.m., directing staff to seek DWR confirmation and to schedule an executive session for legal review as needed.
No final board decision was made on vault privies or an OWTS; those elements remain under review pending DWR guidance and possible code changes.
