PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF MONTROSE COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH

Transcription

1 The Board of County Commissioners met in Special session held at the County Administrative Office Board Room at 2:00 p.m. Those present: Gary Ellis, Chairman; Bill Patterson, Vice-Chairman; Allan Belt, Commissioner; Robert Hill, County Attorney; Carolyn Clawson, Assistant County Attorney; Joe Kerby, County Manager; Marie Simons, Deputy Clerk to the Board. Pledge of Allegiance THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONVENED AS THE BOARD OF HEALTH 1. An Appeal Request as per the Montrose County Board of Health Resolution, Section 3.14, Resolution # Location: Old Chipeta Trail Zoning: General Business Owners: Wayne and Peg King Exhibits: Letter from State of Colorado Department of Health, Del-Mont Consultants, RV Park Analysis This item was continued from July 21, 2008 PROPOSAL This item was continued from the July 21, 2008 meeting to allow the applicant to provide additional information regarding the RV Park sanitation system. This is an appeal of the Montrose County Sanitarian s decision for denying the issuance of a sanitary permit for an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS). This appeal is as per section 3.14 of the Board of Health Resolution (BHR). ANALYSIS: The applicant requested a sanitary permit on June 25, On July 3, 2008, a letter was sent to the applicant stating the application for the sanitary permit submitted on June 25, 2008 was being denied by the County Sanitarian. The reason the permit was being denied was due to the fact that the subject property (Kings RV Park) is in close proximity and has availability to a public treatment works, as outlined in the Montrose County Board of Health Resolution (BHR). It is the policy of the Montrose County Board of Health to require the use of and/or connection to a sewage treatment works where and whenever feasible, and the connection to a sewage treatment works is mandatory if the property to be served is located within 400 feet of sewage-treatment works and the governing body allows the connection. This minimum distance for required connection may be even greater depending upon the specific circumstances, such as community impacts, and related rules, regulations, intergovernmental agreements, etc., as determined by the Montrose County Board of Health; BHR, Sec As per sec of the BHR the applicant shall bear the burden of supplying the Board of Health with sufficient evidence to document that the denied system will be constructed and used in such a manner as to comply with the declaration and intent of these guidelines and all applicable State and local rules and regulations and required terms and conditions in any permits issued pursuant thereto. Information was not supplied at the time the application was submitted on June 25,

2 The County received a letter from the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment dated July 31, 2008 indicating that the sewage disposal system will be under State jurisdiction if the system capacity is greater than or equal to 2000 gallons per day. Since the Board of Health Meeting on July 21, 2008 the applicant, through their engineer, has submitted information to the Board of Health dated August 6, 2008 regarding the applicants property and unpermitted individual sewage disposal system. Staff reviewed the documentation provided by the applicant s engineer, Del-Mont Consultants. Staff determined that additional information regarding the sewage treatment works is still needed. This included: a. Holding tank/vault minimum horizontal property line set-back information. If the vault is not set back a minimum of 25 feet, according to the BOH Regulations, Table II, it does not meet the Board of Health regulatory requirements. b. Property flood plane information. Information received indicates the property is in a FEMA 100-year flood plain. Any development in a flood plain requires a flood plane. Any development in a flood plane requires a flood plane permit. Staff provided the Board of Health with two possible recommendations. If the Board determined that the temporary permit should be approved, conditions were included to verify compliance with the Board of Health Regulations. The Board should also take action to address the minimum horizontal setback deficiency of the tank/vault. This should be addressed as a separate action. Commissioner Patterson asked if the question regarding the horizontal setback was from the acre-property. Mr. White responded that the owners own several properties: the RV park, a small parcel with a home, and the parcel where their home is located to the west of the RV park. This is the property line that would be in violation. The horizontal setback is from one of these properties and there is discussion that it will be annexed. Mr. White indicated that it was his understanding that all of the properties were subject to annexation. Commissioner Ellis asked what the original purpose of the setback was. Mr. Pink responded that the BOH regulations adopted minimum horizontal setbacks by State law. In addition, Montrose County elected to adopt the minimal 25 ft horizontal setback of existing lot (50 ft in new lots) instead of the 10 ft setback that is required by the State. Commissioner Ellis noted there was no danger of another system being created on the other side of the property line if this requirement was waived. Michael Gilbert, Attorney for Wayne and Peg King, thanked the Board for scheduling the special meeting and for the opportunity to submit materials. Mr. Gilbert noted it was his belief that many of the concerns brought up at the last meeting had been addressed. It was Mr. Gilberts opinion that the first recommendation for denial listed in this report should be removed for consideration in order to deal with the conditions because the connection issue raised at the previous meeting had been resolved. On July 22, 2008, the Kings received a proposed annexation agreement from the City of Montrose and were in the process of reviewing the agreement. David Reed, Attorney from Mr. Gilbert s office, was scheduled to meet with Kerwin Jensen the week of August 18 to work out the details of the annexation agreement. 433

3 Mr. Gilbert then introduced Rick Weaver of Del-Mont Consultants and noted a letter dated August 6, 2008 from Mr. Weaver to Greg Pink of the BOH. This letter read as follows: Dear Greg: This letter report is provided to address the County s concerns about wastewater disposal discussed during the Board of Health meeting on July 21. Additionally, we have addressed concerns expressed during our meeting on July 22 and in your Conditions of Approval dated July 21, The following responses follow the number system used in your Conditions of Approval. No. 1 connection to City of Montrose Sewer Our client is diligently pursuing connecting to the City of Montrose sewer. As expressed in the Board of Health meeting by Garry Baker, City of Montrose Planner, the City will approve the Site Application for the lift station required for that connection after all documents are provided and signed by the Kings. Once the Site Application is signed by the City and other agencies, it will be processed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Del-Mont s experience is for that process to take 4 to 6 months. Attachment No. 1 is the draft Site Application and Pump Station Design which will be ready for agency signatures by August 11. By agency signatures, we mean Montrose County, the City of Montrose, and Region 10, all of which must sign the Site Application form prior to it being submitted to CDPHE for review and approval. Simultaneous to the process of obtaining agency signatures, De-Mont will determine if it will be necessary for the Kings to obtain an easement from a neighbor to access the City sewer with the pump station discharge pipeline. If required, securing such an easement could delay the progress of the project. Last week the Kings received the Draft Dedication, Agreement and Declaration of Covenants (Annexation Agreement) for review and signature. The terms and conditions indicated in that agreement will require negotiation with the City. Depending on how willing the parties are to come to agreement, that process could take on to two months. With these steps in mind, Del-Mont suggests the following schedule, assuming that the Annexation Agreement terms can be agreed to, and that the connection to the sewer can proceed: Del-Mont submits Site Application to agencies for signature 08/11/08 Estimated date all agency signatures received* 10/01/08 Del-Mont submits Site Application to CDPHE for approval 10/01/08 Estimated date CDPHE approves Site application (5 months)* 03/01/09 Kings order pumping station 03/01/09 Estimated date pump station delivered* 05/01/09 Pump Station installed and operational 07/01/09 *Kings have little, to no control over these dates. If actual times are shorter or longer, these should be documented, and the overall schedule should be adjusted accordingly. It should be noted that there remains the possibility that the Kings and the City would not come to terms. In that case, public sewer service would no longer be a solution, as current City policy does not allow the City to provide sewer service without a signed annexation agreement. If that occurs, there remains the alternative of permanently installing multiple septic systems, each below 2,000 GPD capacity. The Country Village and Centennial RV Parks located south of Montrose are within Montrose County and are served by onsite systems. The Ouray KOA is served by five septic systems. If septic systems were installed at Kings Park, the number of RV units may need to be reduced to fit the septic system design and site constraints. The need to pursue this 434

4 alternative should be recognized if the parties cannot come to terms by about 10/01/08, based on the schedule indicated above. It is assumed that if this occurs, the Kings will need to negotiate a revised compliance schedule. We would expect that under this scenario, the final date of compliance of 07/01/09 would be accomplished. No. 2 Unpermitted Cabins Del-Mont will not be addressing this matter directly. However, we are unaware of provisions in the County s I.S.D.S. regulations which provide authority for the County to limit the approval of an I.S.D.S. based on the nature of the approval of connected structures, cabins, or RV s. No. 3 Compliance with CDPHE Regulations On July 29, 2008 I had phone conversations with Jocelyn Mullen, P.E. (CDPHE District Engineer), Steve White and yourself regarding whether the wastewater disposal system at the subject RV park falls under CDPHE or Montrose County jurisdiction. It was my understanding if the occupancy of the RV Park is 40 or less RV s (less than 2,000 GPD), it will remain under the County s jurisdiction. Steve White requested this determination from Jocelyn in writing, which she provided on July 31. I have spoken to the Kings about this, and they are willing to limit the occupancy to 40 or less RV or cabin units until a permanent disposal system is installed. It should be noted that for the sake of simplicity, we consider the amount of wastewater generated from an RV or from a cabin to be essentially equal. In accordance with Table 1 of the County s I.S.D.S. regulations, Travel trailer Parks generate 50 gallons per day (GPD) per unit. While our client indicates that the cabins are considered an RV, if cabins were considered a Residential use, the waste generated from the cabins (which do not offer dishwashers, disposals, or laundry facilities) total 52.3 GPD, which is close to the 50 GPD figure for RV s. The Kings indicate that one cabin is equipped with a laundry washer which will be removed, and an inoperative dishwasher which will not be repaired. No. 4 Cleaning Records Attachment No. 2 includes the cleaning and maintenance records for the existing vault. The Kings agree to submit updated records monthly. No. 5 Site Details Lot Area The Kings own three separate parcels in this area. Two are occupied by single family homes, and one is a 6 acre parcel that includes the RV park. This is in excess of the minimum 3 acre requirement for a County I.S.D.S. for a commercial property. Soils and Groundwater Conditions On July 29, I observed a 9 deep test hole that had been excavated as I requested about 75 southeast of the vault on the RV parcel. The location was selected to be reasonably close to the vault, but away from underground utilities. The soil profile was as follows: Depth Below Surface Soil Type 0 to 1 Silty Clay 1 to 3 Gravely Sand 3 to 7.5 Sandy Gravel 7.5 Groundwater 9 Bottom of hole, no evidence of bedrock The vault appears to be constructed with the top at approximately 5 deep and the bottom at about 10 deep. Assuming that the groundwater in the test excavation is at the same level as at the vault, I estimate that the bottom is about 1 below the groundwater level. This is not a problem, as the leakage test discussed below indicates that there is no seepage from the tank that could potentially contaminate the groundwater. 435

5 For the subject vault, I am not aware of any geologic hazard (groundwater, bedrock, ground slope, soil permeability, soil swelling, radon, soil type, salts, flood hazard, landslides, or soil profile) that would compromise the safe use of the vault, or render it a public health risk. Vault Setbacks To the best of my knowledge, the vault meets all setback requirements for vaults indicated in Table II of the county s I.S.D.S. regulations, with the exception of the property line. While a detailed boundary survey of the Kings properties has not been performed for this evaluation, it is estimated based on information provided by the Kings, that the vault is about 10 from the west property line of he RV parcel (also the east line of the parcel that includes their primary residence). This is less than the minimum 25 setback. It is my understanding from discussions with you, that this is not an issue at this time because the Kings own and control both parcels. The vault is approximately 100 from the west side of the River, which is in excess of the 50 minimum requirement. It is about 15 from the nearest waterline, which exceeds the 10 minimum requirement. Water and Sewerline Setbacks The Kings provided the site-piping plan that is included as Attachment No. 3. While not to scale, it indicates the relative relationship of the sewer and water pipelines. Because the piping is already constructed, it is difficult to verify actual locations without excavating numerous test holes. The Kings indicate that all parallel water and sewer mains are constructed with at least 10 of separation The service risers at each RV site are spaced approximately 6 to 8 feet apart, as is common at other RV parks in the area. To that drawing, I have added sequential space numbers and noted several spaces that are used for storage, and are never rented. The Kings are willing to cap the sewer connections on the storage spaces if needed. A total of 53 RV spaces and 9 cabins are present on the RV Park, for a total of 62 units. Flood Hazard The 100 year floodplain is shown on Attachment 4. The FEMA regulatory flood plain extends across the majority of the Park. As can be seen from the current (City GIS) topography, this flood limit appears to have been based on limited topography, as it indicates flooding on to the hillside to the west, which is not possible at the flood elevations indicated. While the FEMA limit is the official limit for the purpose of floodplain administration and insurance requirements, Del-Mont evaluated the actual elevations in the area for a prior project across the Uncompahgre River *River Landing). It was determined based on actual elevations and HEC-RAS computer modeling that the floodplain for the most part remains below the top of the westerly river bank along the RV park frontage. The existing vault is, and proposed pump station will be, approximately 2 above the 100-year floodplain elevation based on both the FEMA and Del-Mont elevations. For this segment of the River, the Floodways were not established by FEMA, and the Park does not impact a floodway. No. 6 Existing Tank/Vault On July 7, I observed from the wastewater holding tank and did not observe any visible structural or construction abnormalities that caused concern. Two cleanout risers with manhole covers were removed for my review. I viewed a video tape that the Kings provided that had been taken of the downstream (west) end of the tank. No openings were observed above the water level. On the opposite (east) end of the tank, a temporary cap was installed to prevent wastewater from entering or leaving the tank. A water level of 4.5 (about 90% full) was measured at that time (12:30 PM) and again later that day (5:00 PM). No change to the water level was detected over that period of time, indicating no leakage into or out of the tank below that level. Following the final measurement, the temporary cap was removed from the 6 inlet pipe, and water quickly entered and almost filled the tank, as expected. If there were significant leaks or bypass piping present in the upstream piping, the water would not have backed up under pressure when the cap was installed. There is a high water alarm light installed to indicate when the vault is approaching full. On July 28, I confirmed the operation of the float switch and light. 436

6 I did not observe anything about the tank that would cause me to suspect the quality of its construction, installation, or current condition. I have no reason to believe that the vault does not satisfy Section of Resolution No In my opinion, based on my visual observations and the level testing, it does not present a public health risk. Please let me know if you have questions or could use additional information prior to the next public meeting about this matter on August 11. It is our goal to address the County s concerns and allow the Park to remain in operation under a temporary I.S.D.S. permit. Sincerely, Rick Weaver, P.E. President, Del-Mont Consultants, Inc. Enclosures: Attachment No. 1 Attachment No. 2 Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 4 Preliminary Pump Station Site Application & Plan Cleaning Records Site Piping Plan Site Plan & Flood Plain Limits Commissioner Ellis noted that the site application did not have a place for the County to sign. Mr. Weaver acknowledged he was mistaken when he informed the BOH they must sign this document. It was his belief the County was not required to sign the site application. The Applicant, City Plant Operator, Kerwin Jensen, (as the local planning agency) along with Region 10 is required to sign the document. Mr. Weaver informed the BOH that the documents were prepared and ready to be submitted; however, the Kings had not had the chance to review the design. It was his belief there would be a provision for a future shower house, which needed to be built into the design. At that time, Commissioner Ellis mentioned the concern of the BOH that the annexation agreement should be made with the City. He noted Mr. Weaver s letter stated, The terms and conditions indicate that agreement will require negotiations with the City. Commissioner Ellis asked if there were points in the agreement presented by the City that needed to be negotiated. Gary Baker from the City informed him there was no negotiations necessary from the City s perspective and that the agreement submitted was a final draft. He noted however, the applicant might choose to attempt to negotiate portions of the agreement. Mr. Weaver then asked Mr. Baker what percentage of the annexation agreements presented to developers was signed as presented. Mr. Baker informed him he could not give an estimate; however, he acknowledged that most agreements were negotiated before an applicant chose to sign the agreement. Mr. Weaver and Mr. Gilbert affirmed this had been their experience as well. Mr. Gilbert also acknowledged it was a possibility the Kings and the City would not be able to reach an agreement. Commissioner Belt pointed out that Mr. Baker had indicated that the agreement submitted to the Kings was final; however, he also noted that Mr. Baker had indicated the City negotiates terms of these agreements. Mr. Baker clarified that when the City submits an agreement to the applicant, they consider the agreement final. If the applicant signs the agreement, the City is ready to sign the agreement. However, the City attempts to be reasonable and work with the applicant as much as possible. Commissioner Ellis then asked Mr. Gilbert if the Kings disagreed with anything in the annexation agreement. Mr. Gilbert responded there were certain infrastructural requirements (construction of 10 ft wide walkway along the property line, removal of cabins, and installation of a bike path) due by the end of the year. The Kings intention was to use the park until they decided to leave. This may be a point of negotiation with the City. Mr. Gilbert 437

7 explained that, for example, in many annexation agreements, if the property is sold or if there is a change in use of the property a clause triggers these requirements. In the interim, the owners may use the property as it is currently used. Commissioner Ellis asked Mr. Gilbert if he expected resolution of the annexation agreement to take place by October 1, Mr. Gilbert affirmed that it was his belief it would be known by October 1, 2008 whether the agreement would move forward. Commissioner Belt pointed out that the Kings might not reach an agreement with the City and asked if the plan would then be to install an I.S.D.S. He also pointed out that it was his understanding it was prohibited to install three separate I.S.D.S. units that have a 1900-gallon capacity because this would put the Kings under the State s jurisdiction. Mr. Weaver informed him there was a provision in State regulations that defined that if there was one piece of property of common ownership and if the septic systems were properly set back, multiple septic systems would be allowed. However, Mr. Weaver reported he had informed the Kings they must decide whether to spend funds on engineer and attorney services in order to get annexation approved through the City, sell the property, or attempt to get approval for septic systems. The Kings decided to pursue annexation through the City. Mr. Gilbert affirmed that this was correct. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve the temporary sanitation permit for an interim holding tank/vault for the King s River Bend RV Park with the following conditions: (County and applicant responses and discussion are noted in italics below each condition.) 1) The applicant shall connect to the City of Montrose sewage treatment works by January 30, The issuance of this temporary permit is for one time only; however, the Board of Health may consider an extension if the annexation agreement with the City of Montrose is in place. If the RV Park is not connected by that date, or an extension granted, this permit is automatically null and void; the system is non-compliant with the County BHR (Board of Health Regulations), and enforcement actions Montrose County deems necessary will be initiated. Mr. Gilbert pointed to Mr. Weaver s report that suggested a timeframe of July 1, The required pump station must be ordered and would cost approximately $35,000. Once the system is approved, the Kings will order the pumps and installation. If the State submits the permits in a timely manner, it is possible this would take place in January of Therefore, the Kings requested an outside limit of the temporary permit of July 1, Mr. White voiced staff s concern that if there were no agreement between the Kings and the City of Montrose by July 1, 2009, the BOH would have allowed the RV park to operate without being hooked to a sewer system until the summer of He suggested that the timeline be established to an earlier date, or an agreement/deadline should be made upon the date the annexation agreement was scheduled to be signed. Commissioner Ellis suggested that the July 1, 2009 deadline remain and if the annexation agreement had not been established, the Kings would be required to return to the BOH. Mr. Gilbert proposed that if an annexation agreement had not been established by January 30, 2009, the Kings would be required to return to the BOH. If the annexation agreement were established, the July 1, 2009 deadline would remain. Mr. Kerby asked how moving the deadline for annexation from October 1, 2008 to January 30, 2009 would impact the timeline for completion. Mr. Gilbert offered that if the annexation was in effect by October 1, 2008 it was possible the RV park could be connected to the City by January 30, 2009; however, he admitted this was unlikely. The Kings could return on January 30, 2009, however, and report to the BOH on their progress. Mr. Hill suggested keeping the January 30, 2009 deadline for connection with the City of Montrose, and 438

8 require that the Kings report the status of their progress to the BOH in early November The deadline could be extended at that time if necessary. Mr. Gilbert suggested language in Condition No. 1 that stated that the BOH would consider a continuation of the permit depending on circumstances. Mr. White suggested leaving the January 30, 2009 deadline. Mr. Hill suggested adding language to the condition to state the BOH would consider an extension of time. Mr. Kerby asked for clarification regarding if an annexation agreement was signed by January 30, He asserted that this would extend the timeline for completion beyond Mr. Weaver s recommended date of July 1, Mr. Gilbert informed him that there would be no deadline of July 1, 2009 unless the Kings returned to the BOH on January 30, 2009 with an application for an extension of time. If the BOH discovered the Kings had not performed due diligence there would be no extension of time. Mr. Gilbert asserted it was their expectation the process would not extend beyond July 1, Mr. Gilbert affirmed they would agree to the January 30, 2009 deadline; however, they requested the elimination of the language of Condition No. 1 that stated, The issuance of this permit was for one time only. He suggested adding language that the applicant may return to the BOH to request a reasonable extension of the permit. Commissioner Patterson offered that if the annexation agreement were not in place at that time, the BOH would need to take alternate action. Mr. Gilbert agreed. Commissioner Patterson added that once the annexation was in place, it was out of the jurisdiction of Montrose County and the BOH. Mr. White affirmed that the RV park s sewage system would be in the jurisdiction City of Montrose. Mr. Gilbert added that it was his belief this required official action by the City Council to approve the annexation agreement. Commissioner Belt asked Mr. Weaver if he had performed an e-coli test at the up-river and downriver boundaries. Mr. Weaver informed him that he had not performed this test. Commissioner Belt asked him what this test entailed. Mr. Weaver reported this would require submitting a sample in a prepared sample bottle to the lab within the prescribed timeframe. Mr. Weaver explained that the standard in which it was measured needed to be established. There would most likely be a measurable change in the groundwater quality downstream of any septic system depending on the distance. Commissioner Ellis asked if the Health Department could establish normal levels. Mr. White informed Commissioner Ellis provisions established that testing was permitted. Therefore, if an issue or question arose, staff had the ability to perform the appropriate testing. If staff discovered a problem, they would then report it to the BOH. Commissioner Ellis commented it was his desire, regarding the January 30, 2009 deadline that there be an annexation agreement between the Kings and the City of Montrose and assurances that the project would be completed according to the timeline and as planned. This would eliminate the necessity for the Kings to request an extension of time. Commissioner Patterson agreed and clarified that the BOH desired annexation and connection to the City of Montrose to be completed by January 30, 2009; however, at that time, they would entertain an extension of this deadline. Commissioner Ellis asked Mr. Kerby if his concerns were addressed by this discussion. Mr. Kerby affirmed that his concerns had been addressed. Mr. Hill suggested adding the following verbiage to Condition No. 1: If the RV park is not connected by that date, or an extension granted... The BOH agreed. Marie Simons, Deputy Clerk to the Board, asked if the following verbiage should be added to Condition No. 1: may consider an extension if the annexation agreement with the City of Montrose is in place. The BOH agreed this needed to be added to the condition. 439

9 2) Use of the vault system shall be permitted on a temporary basis and for limited use occupancy only, as set forth in BHR Regulation All of the RV Park domestic sewage systems must be connected to the vault/holding tank, so that 100% of the domestic sewage from the RV Park is collected in the vault/holding tank. Mr. Gilbert informed the BOH the Kings were agreeable to this condition. 3) In addition to the BHR Regulations, the subject property shall be in full compliance with all other applicable County and State Regulations, including but not limited to, electrical systems, plumbing systems, campground regulations, county building permit requirements, and State and County health regulations specific to the vault. The minimum horizontal property-line setback requirement for the vault/holding tank must be resolved. Mr. Gilbert noted that the Kings were not willing to comply if removal of the cabins was required. He pointed out that the I.S.D.S. regulations do not require building permits of structures because this was a septic capacity and design issue. He also informed the BOH it was his belief they did not have the jurisdiction to review building permits and that it should not condition the issuance of the permit upon building code issues. Mr. Gilbert also reported that the minimum horizontal property-line setback requirement should be removed. Mr. Pink informed BOH the reason the electrical system was included in Condition No. 3 was because the BOH regulations requires that the I.S.D.S. must comply with other applicable rules and regulations. The Kings currently have an alarm light in the septic system, which the BOH assumes is in compliance. However, if the electrical system is not in compliance and the State turns their power off, the Kings would no longer be in compliance with the BOH regulations. The same would apply regarding the plumbing system. The County could not give their approval to operate if the Kings were violating the regulations of another jurisdiction. At that time, Carolyn Clawson, the County s Assistant Attorney, sited the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the Division of Water Quality, (the department that controls septage systems). These regulations stated, The applicant shall bear the burden of supplying the local Board of Health with sufficient evidence to document that the denied system will be constructed and used in such a manner as to comply with the declaration intent of these guidelines and all applicable State and local rules and regulations and required terms and conditions and any permit issued pursuant thereto. Ms. Clawson also sited Section of the BOH Regulations that stated The applicant has the burden of proof for supplying the BOH with sufficient evidence to document that the denied system will be constructed and used in such a manner as to comply with the declaration and intent of these guidelines and all applicable State and local rules and regulations and required terms and conditions and any permit issued thereto. Ms. Clawson affirmed Mr. Pink s assertion that it was important to have electrical and plumbing systems in compliance with the particular regulations. Commissioner Ellis commented that although the BOH was considering a temporary approval, these regulations and requirements would still apply. Mr. Pink and Ms. Clawson affirmed this was correct. Commissioner Patterson asserted that the health and safety of the community was his priority and that it was important to ensure that if any waiver was granted that all requirements are met. Mr. Gilbert noted Mr. Weaver s engineering report stated, I did not observe anything about the tank that would cause me to suspect the quality of its construction, installation, or current condition. I have no reason to believe that the vault does not satisfy Section of Resolution 440

10 No In my opinion, based on my visual observations and the level testing, it does not present a public health risk. Commissioner Ellis asked if Mr. Gilbert was stipulating that the electrical system of the RV park met the electrical code. Mr. Gilbert responded that to the extent that the vault had electrical components, he had no reason to believe it was not in compliance. He also voiced his agreement that the tank must be in compliance. Mr. Gilbert then pointed out that whether the electrical and plumbing met all requirements and regulations was not pertinent to the I.S.D.S. being in compliance. He asked if this condition (No. 3) was designed to require the cabins to be shut down because it was not expressed. Mr. Pink s July 21, 2008 report to the BOH had this condition; however, this report did not. Commissioner Ellis then asked Mr. Pink if this condition was limited strictly to the I.S.D.S. portion or to the entire campground. Mr. Pink responded that the electrical and plumbing pertain specifically to the holding tank; however, if it was discovered that the electrical and plumbing were non-compliant and that there was no electricity to run the alarm system, the vault would not be in compliance. Mr. White interjected that including language to Condition No. 3 stating electrical and plumbing systems was specific to the vault. Mr. Gilbert affirmed this was acceptable. Mr. White added that if a violation of the building code occurs, it would be addressed individually as a building code violation and not as a part of this action. Mr. Weaver informed the BOH that an extension chord currently powered the electrical. Wayne King interjected that the State Electrical Inspector had inspected and affirmed that the RV park was in compliance. Mr. Weaver added that the service near the vault supplied power to the light system for the vault level control. Commissioner Ellis asked if the extension chord powered the system at the time of the inspection. Mr. King responded that the extension cord was being used temporarily to connect the light. Mr. Weaver informed the BOH that a permanent power supply would be installed at the time the pump station was installed. He also noted that it was his belief use of an extension cord was allowed in the temporary operation of a light. Commissioner Ellis suggested requesting the State Electrical Inspector inspect the site. Mr. White informed him if the BOH thought this was necessary, they could make the request. Mr. Weaver affirmed that he was agreeable to an inspection by the State Electrical Inspector. The BOH suggested adding verbiage to the end of the first sentence Condition No. 3 that stated, specific to the vault. Commissioner Belt noted that the last sentence of this condition was eliminated. 4) The volume of wastewater discharge shall not exceed 1999 gallons per day on any one day to remain under the jurisdiction of Montrose County. This includes use of no more than 39 RV only spaces per day based on State calculated standard for wastewater generation of 50 gallons per day per space. If wastewater discharge exceeds 1999 gallons per day or more than 39 RV spaces are used, the County Sanitation Permit is void and the sewage system works falls under the jurisdiction of the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment as per their letter of July 31, Mr. Gilbert informed the BOH there were approximately 62 sites at the RV park. The Kings submitted pumping records of the sites, and Mr. Gilbert noted that not all 62 sites were ever occupied at one time. According to the records, approximately 600 gallons were being pumped through the system each day, which was well below the 1999-gallon limitation. Therefore, he requested that this condition provide that the Kings be allowed to operate their facility as it was currently being operated. He pointed out that this limitation would be easier than limiting use of 441

11 no more than 39 RV only spaces per day. Mr. Weaver added that monitoring the wastewater discharge by the records would be administratively easier. Mr. White confirmed that staff was agreeable to removing the number of spaces (39) indicated in Condition No. 4 because he agreed the number of RV spaces would be difficult to monitor. Commissioner Ellis suggested eliminating the following sentence: This includes use of no more than 39 RV only spaces per day based on State calculated standard for wastewater generation of 50 gallons per day per space. Mr. Gilbert then suggested eliminating a portion of the following sentence that stated, or more than 39 RV spaces are used... Commissioner Ellis asked if staff were concerned about the park models at this time. Mr. White informed him that this was a separate, building permit issue and would be addressed through the building permit process. Mr. Pink interjected that Section of the BOH Regulations stated, A vault, if permitted by the local BOH shall have a minimum of 1000 gallon effective capacity and may be permitted under limited use occupancy for water carriage sewage systems on property which cannot accommodate a sewage system works. Mr. Pink reminded the BOH that during the last meeting regarding this issue there was evidence that several cabins did not comply with the limited use requirement. They were rented to local residents by the month or by the year. It was his belief this needed to be addressed by eliminating the use and occupancy of the cabins. However, he was agreeable to consider another method in which the BOH would be guaranteed these cabins would not be used full time. Mr. Kerby asked if there was a definition in the BOH Regulations regarding limited use. Mr. Pink affirmed there was no definition listed in the BOH Regulations; however, he interpreted limited use to mean other than full time occupancy or rental by local residents. Mr. Gilbert asserted there was no difference between the cabins and the RV s. The duration of the stay was the issue, not the structure. Commissioner Ellis suggested considering the cabins as limited use for the duration of the temporary approval. Mr. White s solution to the issue was to suggest allowing the building code resolve the matter. Mr. Kerby pointed out that this issue might be before the Board again in the near future. Mr. White informed him that the matter would go before the Board of Appeals. Commissioner Ellis asked if Mr. White recommended not addressing the issue of the cabins because they would be a part of the temporary approval. Mr. Kerby interjected that it was his understanding that staff s position was that there was another procedure to be followed regarding the building permit issue for the park models. Mr. Kerby asked staff to explain what this procedure would entail. Mr. Pink informed him that if the BOH recommended going through the building permit procedure, the cabins would be shut down if it were found they were in violation of the building code. The RV park would continue to operate. Mr. Hill clarified that the cabins would be shut down due to a building permit violation and not because they were connected to a vault septic system. At that time, Commissioner Belt asked for clarification regarding the language of Condition No. 4. Staff confirmed that Condition No. 4 should read as follows, The volume of wastewater discharge shall not exceed 1999 gallons per day on any one day to remain under the jurisdiction of Montrose County. If wastewater discharge exceeds 1999 gallons per day, the County Sanitation Permit is void and the sewage system works falls under the jurisdiction of the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment as per their letter of July 31, Mr. Hill agreed that he preferred addressing the cabins as a separate issue. The entire vault system could be viewed as limited use because it was temporary. Mr. Gilbert reiterated that Mr. 442

12 Weaver had suggested a July 1, 2009 deadline to accommodate scheduling, approval, and annexation issues. 5) The applicant shall submit the cleaning, pumping and maintenance records to the Montrose County Land Use Department. The records shall be in a legible form with specific documentation from the septage system hauler provided on its original manifest or directly to the County Sanitarian from the septage hauler performing the service. This information needs to shall be submitted before the last working day of each month starting on or before August 29, Mr. Gilbert pointed out that Condition No. 5 required the applicant to continue to provide cleaning, pumping and maintenance records to the Montrose County Land Use Department and that the Kings were agreeable to this condition. Commissioner Ellis suggested that the last sentence of Condition No. 5 be changed to state, This information shall be submitted... Mr. Hill and Mr. Gilbert affirmed this would be acceptable. 6) Approval of a completed Flood plain Permit for the tank/vault shall be obtained submitted to Montrose County by August 20, Mr. Gilbert offered that the permit application should be submitted by the end of the week and requested that Condition No. 6 be changed to state, Permit for the tank/vault shall be submitted by August 15, Mr. White asserted that staff would prefer a specific date the application was completed and submitted to Montrose County. Mr. Weaver affirmed that this date was acceptable. The BOH also affirmed that changing the term from obtained to submitted would be acceptable. Commissioner Belt confirmed that Condition No. 6 would state, Approval of a completed Flood plain Permit for the tank/vault shall be submitted to Montrose County by August 15, All concerned parties affirmed this language was agreeable. 7) Approval of the use of the vault under this temporary permit does not constitute a waiver of the requirement for connection to the available sewer treatment system, in accordance with the BHR. Mr. Gilbert informed the BOH the Kings were agreeable to this condition. 8) The County Sanitarian or designee will inspect and/or perform testing of any type and frequency the County Sanitarian deems necessary, at reasonable times and on reasonable notice, the site to verify compliance with all appropriate regulations and compliance with all conditions attached to the permit. Commissioner Ellis asked what the BOH deemed as reasonable notice. Mr. Pink responded that the testing would take place during the day and they would schedule an appointment with the Kings in advance. Commissioner Ellis asked why reasonable notice was necessary if it was the County s right to inspect. Mr. Pink responded that the BOH regulations specifically state that inspections should be completed with reasonable notice. Mr. Gilbert affirmed that the verbiage reasonable notice was acceptable. Mr. Hill agreed that reasonable notice implies the exigency of the situation. 443

13 Commissioner Belt also noted that the words the site needed to be eliminated from Condition No. 8. Mr. Gilbert affirmed that he agreed with Commissioner Belt s suggestion. Mr. White also affirmed this was acceptable. 9) Approval of this request does not limit the power of the Board of Health to terminate the permit issued under these proceedings prior to its expiration date, if a finding of noncompliance with the permit conditions has been determined, and to proceed with enforcement action. Mr. Gilbert informed the BOH the Kings were agreeable to this condition. 10) The Board of Health grants waiver on the 10 ft. horizontal minimal setback for the purposes of this vault. If it is determined the setback is less than 10 ft., condition must be remedied to meet State standard. Commissioner Belt then suggested adding Condition No. 10 to accommodate the horizontal setback, which would read, Approval of a waiver of a 25 ft. horizontal setback for this temporary vault system.. Commissioner Patterson added that the two properties would need to remain under the same ownership. Mr. White suggested waiving the 25 ft setback for this vault only because the Kings could not return in the future to request another vault or septic system. Mr. Gilbert agreed. Mr. White recommended eliminating the last sentence of Condition No. 3 and creating the following language for Condition No. 10: The Board of Health grants waiver on the 25 ft horizontal minimal horizontal setback for the purposes of this vault. Mr. Pink pointed out that the BOH could not create a waiver that was less stringent than the State Health guidelines. State Health guidelines require a 10 ft horizontal minimal setback. Mr. Weaver interjected that it was unknown where the property line was located without a survey. Mr. Pink suggested that if the setback was less than 10 ft, the new subdivision regulations allow property line adjustments between properties and that a quick-claim deed could be filed to make two properties into one. Commissioner Patterson voiced his concern of the possibility that in the future it was discovered the setback was actually 3 ft from the property line. Mr. White informed him that a condition could be made that states, If it is determined that it (setback) is less than 10 ft, proper action must be taken to remedy the situation. This would entail creating a Boundary Line Adjustment to move the line to the required 10 ft. Mr. Weaver asked if the Kings needed to take action to prove that the setback was 10 ft. Mr. White informed him the Land Use Department would request a site plan showing the setback. COMMISSIONER BELT MOVED TO APPROVE THE TEMPORARY SANITATION PERMIT FOR AN INTERIM HOLDING TANK/VAULT FOR THE KINGS RIVER BEND RV PARK WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT SHALL CONNECT TO THE CITY OF MONTROSE SEWAGE SYSTEM WORKS BY JANUARY 30, THE ISSUANCE OF THIS TEMPORARY PERMIT IS FOR ONE TIME ONLY; HOWEVER, THE BOH (BOARD OF HEALTH) MAY CONSIDER AN EXTENSION IF THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MONTROSE IS IN PLACE. IF THE RV PARK IS NOT CONNECTED BY THAT DATE, OR AN EXTENSION GRANTED, THIS PERMIT IS AUTOMATICALLY NULL AND VOID; THE SYSTEM IS NON- COMPLIANT WITH THE COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH REGULATIONS, AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS MONTROSE COUNTY DEEMS NECESSARY WILL BE INITIATED. 444

14 2. USE OF THE VAULT SYSTEM SHALL BE PERMITTED ON A TEMPORARY BASIS AND FOR LIMITED USE OCCUPANCY ONLY, AS SET FORTH IN BHR REGULATION ALL OF THE RV PARK DOMESTIC SEWAGE SYSTEMS MUST BE CONNECTED TO THE VAULT/HOLDING TANK, SO THAT 100% OF THE DOMESTIC SEWAGE FROM THE RV PARK IS COLLECTED IN THE VAULT/HOLDING TANK. 3. IN ADDITION TO THE BHR REGULATIONS, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OTHER APPLICABLE COUNTY AND STATE REGULATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, PLUMBING SYSTEMS, CAMPGROUND REGULATIONS, COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, AND STATE AND COUNTY HEALTH REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE VAULT. 4. THE VOLUME OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SHALL NOT EXCEED 1999 GALLONS PER DAY ON ANY ONE DAY TO REMAIN UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF MONTROSE COUNTY. IF WASTEWATER DISCHARGE EXCEEDS 1999 GALLONS PER DAY, THE COUNTY SANITATION PERMIT IS VOID AND SEWAGE SYSTEM WORKS FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT AS PER THEIR LETTER OF JULY 31, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THE CLEANING, PUMPING AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS TO THE MONTROSE COUNTY LAND USE DEPARTMENT. THE RECORDS SHALL BE IN A LEGIBLE FORM WITH SPECIFIC DOCUMENTATION FROM THE SEPTAGE SYSTEM HAULER PROVIDED ON ITS ORIGINAL MANIFEST OR DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTY SANITARIAN FROM THE SEPTAGE HAULER PERFORMING THE SERVICE. THIS INFORMATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LAST WORKING DAY OF EACH MONTH STARTING ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 29, APPROVAL OF A COMPLETED FLOOD PLAIN PERMIT FOR THE TANK/VAULT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO MONTROSE COUNTY BY AUGUST 15, APPROVAL OF THE USE OF THE VAULT UNDER THIS TEMPORARY PERMIT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONNECTION TO THE AVAILABLE SEWER TREATMENT SYSTEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BHR. 8. THE COUNTY SANITARIAN OR DESIGNEE WILL INSPECT AND/OR PERFORM TESTING OF ANY TYPE AND FREQUENCY THE COUNTY SANITARIAN DEEMS NECESSARY, AT REASONABLE TIMES AND ON REASONABLE NOTICE TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE PERMIT. 9. APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST DOES NOT LIMIT THE POWER OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH TO TERMINATE THE PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THESE PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO ITS EXPIRATION DATE, IF A FINDING OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERMIT CONDITIONS HAS BEEN DETERMINED, AND TO PROCEED WITH ENFORCEMENT ACTION. 10. THE BOARD OF HEALTH GRANTS WAIVER ON THE 10 FT HORIZONTAL MINIMAL SETBACK FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS VAULT. IF IT IS DETERMINED THE SETBACK IS LESS THAN 10 FT, CONDITION MUST BE REMEDIED TO MEET STATE STANDARD. 445

15 COMMISSIONER PATTERSON SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. At that time, Mr. Kerby asked for clarification regarding the park model. Mr. Hill informed him that the park models had been deemed acceptable to be connected to the sewer system. He was unsure if they were acceptable for a building permit. Mr. Gilbert added that it had not been determined if a building permit was necessary. Commissioner Ellis noted that this information would be determined in the future. Mr. White agreed and noted that the status needed to be clarified (i.e.: ask for a permit unless the Kings can prove a permit is not required). Ms. Clawson asked if the Kings would be required to apply for a permit. Mr. Gilbert responded that it was their position that they were not subject to the building permit requirements, noting that he had submitted documentation to Mr. Hill that affirmed their position. Mr. White agreed that a discussion needed to take place to determine the next steps in the process. Commissioner Ellis then instructed staff to investigate the issue and make a determination. At that time, staff would discuss the results of the determination with the Kings. THE BOARD OF HEALTH RECONVENED AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 446