Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Owts Variance Alpenflo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alpenflo campground owners seek variance for vault and composting toilets; Lake County board delays decision
Summary
Owners of the proposed Alpenflo campground asked Lake County for a variance to use vault privies and composting/dry‑flush toilets instead of conventional septic systems, arguing topography, lack of on‑site water and power, and environmental benefits justify the change. Staff raised concerns about the 10 tent sites’ ability to accommodate a conforming system; the board tabled the application for more evidence, notably utility documentation.
Owners of a proposed campground called Alpenflo asked the Lake County Board of Health on Feb. 19 for a variance to allow vault privies and composting or dry‑flush toilets instead of conventional on‑site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS).
The applicants, identified in the hearing record as Sarah and Sterling, told the board their 91.02‑acre project would offer a mix of 30–50 campsites and about 10 sheltered group sites and estimated a maximum combined occupancy of roughly 250 people. The proposal would place 10 tent campsites on a flatter eastern bench served by two restroom locations with four 1,000‑gallon vault tanks, and use composting or dry‑flush toilets at elevated sheltered sites on the west side of the parcel. An engineer for the applicants said the vault system’s waste‑flow calculation equates to about "roughly 8,000 gallons per year," based on U.S. Forest Service design guidance.
"Strict enforcement of a conventional OWTS as suggested by CPD staff would create a practical difficulty unrelated to financial gain," one applicant said, arguing that requiring flush systems would increase land disturbance, water use and the risk of freeze‑related failures in Lake County’s cold, rocky soils. The applicants and several public commenters cited experience with vault toilets on Forest Service and county properties and stressed that vault systems can be pumped and transferred to treatment facilities on a regular schedule.
County planning staff and the board’s staff analyst, Anne, said the Lake County OWTS regulations are more stringent than the state standard and treat vault privies as nonconforming uses that require a variance. On the tent‑site portion of the application staff reported it "had no engineering basis nor anything remarkable to the geology of the site" that would prevent installation of a conforming OWTS, and therefore said staff had "difficulty in making a finding" that the site cannot accommodate a conforming system. Anne told the board that vault privies in Lake County are "subject to limited occupancy, meaning no more than 90 consecutive days or no more than 180 days a year," language staff has to apply when evaluating a variance.
Steve Proseis, the state on‑site wastewater coordinator (CDPHE), told the board Regulation 43 sets statewide minimum standards and that local jurisdictions may adopt more stringent rules; he highlighted the technical distinction between on‑site septic systems, which treat effluent on site, and vault privies, which are holding tanks pumped and taken to a treatment facility.
Public speakers who supported the variance included a local installer who described problems with pumping and freeze‑failure in engineered OWTS at high elevation, and a Forest Service contractor who said the agency successfully operates hundreds of vault units regionally. An economic development representative also urged flexibility, saying vault systems better support small, low‑impact lodging that could boost local business without heavy infrastructure.
Board members focused their deliberations on the narrow legal standard they must apply: whether the site "cannot accommodate" a conforming OWTS under existing county rules. Several members said they were sympathetic to the applicants’ operational and environmental arguments but that the record lacked documentary evidence about key constraints — notably whether electricity or a reasonable service connection can be provided to the parcel. One member asked the applicants to provide correspondence or other proof from the utility showing attempts to secure power; staff and members agreed that proof about infrastructure access would help satisfy the "cannot accommodate" finding if power truly cannot be extended to the site.
After extended discussion about precedent, the relationship between a conditional‑use permit (CUP) and the variance, and which parts of the site (tent sites versus sheltered sites) presented genuine access or topography problems, the board voted to table the application and continue the hearing. The board set a continuation date on the record for Monday the 2nd at 3:45 p.m. to allow applicants to submit further evidence, particularly documentation regarding electricity and service access.
The board did not make a final determination on approval or denial of the variance at the Feb. 19 meeting. The continued hearing is intended to give the applicant time to provide utility documentation and other materials the board said it needs to determine whether the variance criteria can be met.
What happens next: The board expects additional information from the applicants, including any utility communications about power availability and plans for waste disposal from composting/dry‑flush toilets. Staff said it will continue to apply current Lake County OWTS rules while work on a broader regulatory update and moratorium proceeds.
