Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Colorado Prospector - Gem and mineral prospecting and mining forums _ Off Topic _ Gold Rush Next Season

Posted by: Crusty Jan 2 2017, 08:43 AM

http://starcasm.net/archives/363143


















Posted by: swizz Jan 2 2017, 09:40 AM

They did horrible in OR and I can't imagine that Fairplay yielded the 3-5 thousand ounces per season that they need to keep it profitable. IMHO - they should to go back to the frickin Klondike or AK for the size of their operation and equipment. I doubt we'll see anything in the next season about this 2.5 acre violation. Fairplay.... that tells me they're really running out of ideas on where to mine, especially with that size of operation.
Tony & Parker have the right plans, every year without fail. happy088.gif

Posted by: Crusty Jan 2 2017, 09:42 AM

QUOTE (swizz @ Jan 2 2017, 08:40 AM) *
They did horrible in OR and I can't imagine that Fairplay yielded the 3-5 thousand ounces per season that they need to keep it profitable. IMHO - they should to go back to the frickin Klondike or AK for the size of their operation and equipment. I doubt we'll see anything in the next season about this 2.5 acre violation. Fairplay.... that tells me they're really running out of ideas on where to mine, especially with that size of operation.
Tony & Parker have the right plans, every year without fail. happy088.gif


No doubt... stick with what works!

Posted by: johnnybravo300 Jan 3 2017, 10:09 AM

I think I watched the first episode where they were trying to get their equipment to Alaska but they had a flat tire before they got on the boat and no one could fix it.
A mining crew is going to Alaska to mine with all that machinery in the backcountry and no one knows how to patch a flat tire? Serious??
I knew then that it was all bs. Just a bunch of drama. That was all the preview I needed of those retards haha. No wonder they have so many problems all the time.

Posted by: Gene Kooper Oct 20 2017, 05:06 PM

I guess this thread is as good as any. A story on a lawsuit filed against the the Board of County Commissioners of Park County reported in the October 18, 2017 Summit Daily newspaper.

http://www.summitdaily.com/news/regional/discovery-channels-gold-rush-mining-for-ratings-faces-lawsuit-from-park-county-neighbors/

I don't see the neighbors as having much luck in their lawsuit against the Commissioners. While the residential neighbors may be correct that without the Discovery Channel's money, the Hoffmans are incapable of turning a profit, "TV ratings" will not earn them a victory in court. The aside that the U.S. Forest Service is against the rezoning of the land because

QUOTE
The U.S. Forest Service also weighed in against the rezoning, saying in a letter that the show had "increased dramatically" the number of people living on National Forest land and mining without proper permits.


is a gneiss touch!

Posted by: ASTROBLEME Oct 29 2017, 06:14 PM

There are numerous occurrences of precious and base metal deposits near Fairplay, Colorado. Coal, uranium, oil, gas, industrial minerals and several geothermal resources are also located in Park County. Government planners and concerned citizens need to work with resource developers to assure proper access to and preservation of mineral rights. Surface occupiers seldom control the mineral wealth held in the lands below their interests as the minerals most likely have been severed from the surface estate many years ago. It is my understanding that the land use zoning at the Hoffman's mine site was illegally changed decades ago and the land in question should have never been removed from mining to promote residential developments.

If those parties now complaining actually owned the minerals where they built homes upon, then there wouldn't be any problem. The mineral developers pay A LOT of severance taxes derived from the production of their operations and the jobs they bring in benefit that community that was historically founded upon "treating miners fairly".

From my perspective, the folks involved with the Gold Rush series have done a fair job of revealing to the general public some of the hardships endured in trying to develop a valuable gold mine. I'll give credit to the Hoffman's for their persistence. I wish them well in their future endeavors in the Park County area.

ASTROBLEME

Posted by: ASTROBLEME Nov 12 2017, 06:17 PM

Attention Park County Mining Claim Owners and Operators:

Here's current information you need to be aware of. "Mining Zone District" begins on page 32.

https://www.parkco.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/264

ASTROBLEME

Posted by: CP Nov 16 2017, 03:14 PM

Thanks for the update on that Johnny. happy088.gif Very interesting and good point you've made about the illegal re-zoning now coming to light because the complaining home owners in the area (who aren't the owners of the minerals under their homes) don't like the fact they choose to live in a mineral extraction area. slaphead.gif
You're correct, it is a good thing the Gold Rush crew persisted on that part and hopefully they can succeed properly in the future too. happy112.gif It sure will be interesting to see how the home owners will react too as things proceed in the future. Sounds like they are getting a bit of learning curve lately as "home owners" about mineral ownership. smiley-cool14.gif

Posted by: Gene Kooper Nov 22 2017, 11:51 PM

QUOTE (ASTROBLEME @ Oct 29 2017, 05:14 PM) *
Surface occupiers seldom control the mineral wealth held in the lands below their interests as the minerals most likely have been severed from the surface estate many years ago. It is my understanding that the land use zoning at the Hoffman's mine site was illegally changed decades ago and the land in question should have never been removed from mining to promote residential developments.

If those parties now complaining actually owned the minerals where they built homes upon, then there wouldn't be any problem. The mineral developers pay A LOT of severance taxes derived from the production of their operations and the jobs they bring in benefit that community that was historically founded upon "treating miners fairly".

From my perspective, the folks involved with the Gold Rush series have done a fair job of revealing to the general public some of the hardships endured in trying to develop a valuable gold mine. I'll give credit to the Hoffman's for their persistence. I wish them well in their future endeavors in the Park County area.

ASTROBLEME

Do you have any evidence to support your general statement that land owners (surface occupiers) do not generally own both the surface and mineral estate (at least with respect to Park County)? As a land surveyor who restricts my practice to mineral surveys, I rarely run across that case. When I do, it is usually a situation where a Forest Service land exchange has occurred where the private land owner retained the mineral estate. I have seen a few examples on the BLM Master Title Plats where the surface was reconveyed to the U.S. but not the minerals. I can see it being more common for residential subdivisions where the subdivider keeps the mineral estate, esp. in areas with oil and gas plays like Weld County. In this case, the property is owned by High Speed Aggregate, Inc. and was originally patented as placer claims.

Also, do you have a source or hard evidence that the zoning was illegally changed several decades ago? I agree that there is a long history of zoning clashes between mining interests and those wanting to develop old mining properties for residential use in Park County. One of my past clients owned several hundred mining claims and fought the good fight with the county over that very issue. He very much wanted to preserve the mining history of Park County and served on a county board dealing with these issues. His efforts were mostly in vain from what he told me. BTW...the property is only leased to the Hoffmans.

The current clash has nothing to do with whether the residents own both the surface and mineral estates. Their land is not being mined. The property owned by High Speed Aggregate, Inc. is near the residential lots. The residents are outraged at the noise and the fact that "their" county commissioners ignored the Planning Dept. recommendation to reject the rezoning application.

From the research that I have done, I found that High Speed Aggregate, Inc. applied for the rezoning request on April 30, 2017. That is at complete odds with the Gold Rush show that indicates the Hoffman crew had no idea that the new area was not zoned for mining, until Mr. Dodge got the county's cease and desist order. It looks to this jaundiced eye that the show's producers wanted to manufacture some drama by showing the Hoffman's shock at being forced to halt their mining operations by the county. And, unless Mr. Dodge is an officer of High Speed Aggregate, Inc. or approved to act as their representative, I have large doubts about him being the only (or even main) speaker at the County Commissioners meeting in August. I say this because HSA requested to postpone the rezoning request from the June 2017 Planning Commission meeting because they had determined it was prudent to engage legal counsel.

QUOTE (ASTROBLEME @ Nov 12 2017, 05:17 PM) *
Attention Park County Mining Claim Owners and Operators:

Here's current information you need to be aware of. "Mining Zone District" begins on page 32.

https://www.parkco.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/264

ASTROBLEME

This is only applicable to private property owners who may have an interest in mining their property. It does not apply to the owners/operators of unpatented mining claims.

QUOTE (CP @ Nov 16 2017, 02:14 PM) *
Thanks for the update on that Johnny. happy088.gif Very interesting and good point you've made about the illegal re-zoning now coming to light because the complaining home owners in the area (who aren't the owners of the minerals under their homes) don't like the fact they choose to live in a mineral extraction area. slaphead.gif
You're correct, it is a good thing the Gold Rush crew persisted on that part and hopefully they can succeed properly in the future too. happy112.gif It sure will be interesting to see how the home owners will react too as things proceed in the future. Sounds like they are getting a bit of learning curve lately as "home owners" about mineral ownership. smiley-cool14.gif

CP,

I'll ask you also, what proof do you have to make the bold assertion that the zoning was illegal? It is all well and fine to show some contempt for what one regards as over-reaching county land use regulations. I found documentation that the land in question was treed, zoned as residential for at least 45 years and that the previous land owners never sought to change the zoning. That is until High Speed Aggregate, Inc, completed the purchase of the property in September 2016. This last winter HSA was working furiously to amend their mining permit because the Hoffman crew (I regard them generally as morons, but I digress) expanded the mining operations in 2016 outside of the mining permit area (i.e. they cut down trees, moved dirt around, etc.). HSA was on the hook for some hefty fines by the Colorado Mine Reclamation Board. IIRC, it was in the neighborhood of $35,000 in fines. I would presume that during the time that the permit was being revised it was found that the 24-acre property was zoned residential rather than mining.

Before anyone gets their hackles up, I have worked as a land surveyor in Park County since 1995. In the course of my work, I had to become familiar with the county rulz and regs. From the other thread where CP and Denise described their county issues, I posted several statutes that were enacted in the early 1970s that passed control of land use issues from state government to local government (i.e. counties). The below quote that states the zoning had been residential since 1974, is contemporaneous with counties gaining local control over land use. If some are hell-bent on insisting that the zoning back then was done illegally, I would really appreciate concrete evidence, not just some "understanding" or buying an oldtimer's notion that it was illegal. If anyone posting on this forum had purchased a house near the current mining operation when things were quiet and then found yourself living next door to a large, noisy mining operation, would you be happy? I don't give the nearby land owners much hope of getting the rezoning overturned. As elected officials, the Park County Commissioners are protected from being sued solely because a plaintiff doesn't like the decision that they made. IMO the best they can hope for is that additional restrictions will be imposed by the county (e.g. noise abatement).

QUOTE
The subject property is located just west of the Town of Fairplay, between Platte River Drive and the Middle Fork of the South Platte River. A Vicinity Map is included as Attachment 2. It consists of three metes-and-bounds lots of 20, 19.5, and 2 acres. The applicant wishes to rezone the lots for mining and mining-related uses.

Northern portions of the subject property have been mined historically. The property is currently being mined under a Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety permit issued in 1991. Over the past several decades (i.e., since 1960), the mined area remained fairly consistent, but between 2014 and 2016 it expanded by roughly 2 acres.

The history of the zoning of the property is clear and simple. The original zoning map of 1974 shows the area north of the N1/2N1/2 quarter quarter line as Mining, and south of the line as Residential. That division was consistent in the 1998 zoning map, and remains consistent today. To reiterate, the zoning of the subject parcels has never changed since the first Park County Zoning Map. Based on historical information, the disturbed area, which consists of tailings from the river dredging, has extended into the Residential zone district since 1975.

snip, snip

The proposed expansion of the Mining operations is compatible with neighboring mining activities. However, the proximity of Residentially-zoned properties has already resulted in complaints regarding noise and other environmental impacts. The proposed expansion of the operation would result in mining activity within 100 yards of residences on nearby lots, and no buffer or setback is proposed in the application. The mining plan states that material processing would occur from sunrise to sunset or from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., whichever is longer. There is no stated schedule limitation on other types of activities could occur within the processing area. Impacts to neighboring residences could be reduced through appropriate conditions.

If folks are interested and believe it would benefit the discussion, I'd be happy to provide links to the statements in the last quote along with additional information.

Posted by: EMac Nov 29 2017, 10:04 PM

I'd appreciate the links and additional info. Things are busy for me lately, but I'll check back when I can. Thanks Gene!

Posted by: ASTROBLEME Nov 30 2017, 12:50 PM

Gene,

The county zoning was illegal because there was no public hearing held in 1970's when the first zoning map was approved. That was the testimony of one of three mining engineers involved in this matter.

ASTROBLEME

Posted by: CP Nov 30 2017, 06:06 PM

Thanks for the update Johnny, no public hearing held back then would certainly seem proof that the rezoning was illegal if that is the case.
Honestly I didn't click into or read details on any of the the link you recently posted but was hopeful to find something that crew did for the positive side and mining.

Frankly Gene, my opinion of that particular crew is the same as yours..... they seem to come up short on the finishes so to speak. slaphead.gif Not sure why you called my view of county outside their authority to be contempt.......it is not! However I do contend that many times the government officials (of what ever offices) can and do step beyond their "delegated authority" given them by the law. At that point it is the official who is in contempt, not me! I contend the citizens are the only check that remains effective on that. If one wants to take every thing for gospel that the gov says then that is absolutely no different than following hearsay from an old timer as facts!
I say and have always said......your own knowledge on rights/ownership issues pays off when needed in ones personal situations of that type. Know your ground and make a stand where it needs to be.

BTW my personal case with the county has been dismissed by prosecution! happy088.gif

As far as mineral rights being separated from surface rights....... I've found that to be true on every piece of property I've been involved with ownership transfer directly. Oil and gas, Timber, Mineral and water rights can and often are separated in the homeowners surface ownership. Not always is that the case but it certainly does happen with many of the residential home site or subdivisions of today's world.

Posted by: ASTROBLEME Dec 1 2017, 09:48 AM

[quote name='CP' date='Nov 30 2017, 05:06 PM' post='47704']
However I do contend that many times the government officials (of what ever offices) can and do step beyond their "delegated authority" given them by the law. At that point it is the official who is in contempt, not me! I contend the citizens are the only check that remains effective on that. If one wants to take every thing for gospel that the gov says then that is absolutely no different than following hearsay from an old timer as facts!
I say and have always said......your own knowledge on rights/ownership issues pays off when needed in ones personal situations of that type. Know your ground and make a stand where it needs to be.
[/i]

CP,

Thought you'd like to see this copy of the official USFS comments on the Park County Mine Re-Zoning issue. In my opinion, this is a good example of your concerns as the USFS doesn't have authority over "the television show" that is being filmed on private property. sadno.gif

Blaming "the television show" won't stop the problems for the USFS in that vicinity. My family has encountered illegal mining and claim jumping on our holdings in Park County on USFS lands for a long time. These problems occur at about the same rate as they always have. The show hasn't increased illegal activities beyond what we've seen historically. In fact, most of our claim jumping problems are from the non-mining public looking to steal some high grade gold. The best way to stop problems is to apprehend those involved and my family supports vigorous prosecution through the legal system.

I think "the television show" has increased awareness of mining issues and that is a good thing. 2c.gif

Glad to hear you've prevailed over the bureaucracy in your matter. thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

ASTROBLEME



Posted by: johnnybravo300 Dec 1 2017, 10:45 AM

I'm glad to hear that circus is over Dan. I bet they felt like a bunch of idiots haha.

Posted by: Gene Kooper Dec 1 2017, 09:59 PM

QUOTE (EMac @ Nov 29 2017, 09:04 PM) *
I'd appreciate the links and additional info. Things are busy for me lately, but I'll check back when I can. Thanks Gene!

EMac,

I'll break up the information into multiple posts. This one deals with the Park County Planning Commission's June 13, 2017 meeting. I've included both a web link and PDF of the agenda, along with PDFs of the additional information (hot links to these two documents are also available in the agenda). The minutes of the meeting have not been uploaded yet.

June 13, 2017 Park County Planning Commission https://www.parkco.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_06132017-654?html=true.

[attachment=11319:Planning...7_Agenda.pdf]
Agenda item .6. Rezoning Case #17Zon-04 is the one of interest and contains two documents. As noted in the agenda, the hearing was postponed.

[attachment=11321:Apllicat...June2017.pdf]
[attachment=11320:Postpone...June2017.pdf]
The first document is the application for rezoning prepared by High Speed Aggregate, Inc. and submitted to the Park County Planning Commission on April 30, 2017. The fee is a mere $1700.00. Pages 2 and 3 detail all of the information that an applicant must supply to the Planning Commission for a rezoning request. Pages 8-11 contain copies of the warranty deeds for the two properties*. A map of the zone districts is on page 14. The mining plan begins on page 18 (Exhibit D) and the reclamation plan begins on page 26 (Exhibit E).

The second attachment is an email chain where HSA requested a postponement on the hearing, in part to retain legal counsel. It also mentions the alleged incident between three members of the Hoffman crew and a "member of Park County against us".

* An United States patent was issued on January 10, 1874, which includes the ground subject to the rezoning request. The patent is for a placer mining claim (issuance of the patent is authorized under the July 26, 1866 Mining Law). The placer is described by aliquot parts and, therefore, a mineral survey was not required. For completeness, here is a copy of the patent located in the Control Document Index documents of the BLM's GLO Records web site.

[attachment=11322:CDI_288143.PDF]
I'll post the July 11, 2017 Planning Commission meeting agenda and 4 related documents shortly.

Posted by: Gene Kooper Dec 1 2017, 11:23 PM

Continuing on....

This post deals with the Park County Planning Commission's July 11, 2017 meeting. I've included both a web link and PDF of the agenda, along with PDFs of the additional information (hot links to these four documents are also available in the agenda). The minutes of the meeting have not been uploaded yet.

July 11, 2017 Park County Planning Commission https://www.parkco.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07112017-660?html=true.

[attachment=11323:Planning...7_Agenda.pdf]
Afternoon agenda item .1. Rezoning Case #17Zon-04 is the one of interest and contains four documents (last agenda item).

Rezoning case documents

[attachment=11324:17ZON_04...and_Atts.pdf]
[attachment=11325:Referral_Responses.pdf]
[attachment=11326:Public_Comment.pdf]
[attachment=11327:Applicat...y11_2017.pdf]
The first document is the Planning Department Staff Report issued on July 5, 2017. Some of the quoted material in my prior post of Nov. 22 comes from this report.

The report recommends to the Planning Commission that the rezoning be denied.

QUOTE
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the Rezoning be denied due to an inability to meet standard of approval number 4 as submitted. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval, staff can assist in identifying potential appropriate conditions.

The second document contains a referral response from the Town of Fairplay that offers no specific objection as long as the mining permit and operating plan are enforced as written. The other correspondence is an email forwarded from Josh Voorhis, District Ranger, South Park Ranger District. It is an informal restatement of the USFS concerns outlined in the letter that Mr. Tonko posted above in this thread.

The third document contains three letters from nearby residents opposed to the rezoning change.

The fourth document is the application for rezoning prepared by High Speed Aggregate, Inc. and submitted to the Park County Planning Commission on April 30, 2017. It is essentially the same document as the document in the previous post with the addition of a letter by the mining engineering firm retained by High Speed Aggregate, Inc., (Greg Lewicki and Associates). The author of that letter, Mr. Ben Langenfeld does not mention that there was no public hearing in 1975 regarding the original zoning. Instead he states:
QUOTE
It appears that the zoning of residential use that was designated in 1975 on this property (and others) was done without regard to the geology or the economic viability of the gold placer deposits.

If the original zoning designation was done without a public hearing why was that fact and any supporting evidence not included in the summary letter by the Greg Lewicki and Associates engineer? If as Mr. Tonko asserts this is illegal why would it not be documented in the rezoning application? As a footnote, the Fairplay Flume published an article on the July BOCC on August 4, 2017. It states:
QUOTE
Three mining engineers testified in support. One said no public hearings were held in 1975 when the first zoning map was approved.

I'll post the July 27, 2017 Board of County Commissioners' meeting agenda (note: the agenda states that this was originally scheduled to be heard at the June 22, 2017 BOCC meeting, but it was postponed because the June Planning Commission hearing had been postponed), 14 related documents, the meeting minutes and the Fairplay Flume article that summarized the BOCC meeting later this evening or tomorrow.

Posted by: Gene Kooper Dec 2 2017, 01:46 AM

Third Installment.

This post includes the Board of County Commissioners' July 27, 2017 meeting. I've included both a web link and PDF of the agenda, along with PDFs of the additional information (hot links to the fourteen documents are also available in the agenda).

July 27, 2017 Board of County Commissioners https://www.parkco.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07272017-659?html=true.
[attachment=11342:Board_of...7_Agenda.pdf]
Public Hearing(s) item .IV. Rezoning Case #17Zon-04 (last agenda item).

Rezoning case documents included in the agenda.

Rezoning application (appears to be identical to the application included in the July 11, 2017 Planning Commission hearing (included for completeness).
[attachment=11328:Application.pdf]
BOCC Planning Dept. Staff Report, dated July 23, 2017 (similar to the staff report in the previous post with the addition of the Planning Commission's recommendation to reject the rezoning request by a vote of 4 to 1).
[attachment=11329:17ZON_04...f_Report.pdf]
Park County Planning Commission Resolution # 07-2017-05
[attachment=11330:PC_RESOL..._2017_05.pdf]
Referral Response (appears to be the same document by the Town of Fairplay and USFS as included in the previous post).
[attachment=11331:Referral_Responses.pdf]
Public Comments (includes additional responses to the one in the previous post).
[attachment=11332:Public_Comment.pdf]
Form letters in support of the rezoning request that also are targeted at the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety to approve the 112 mining permit.
[attachment=11333:neighbor...ort_redd.pdf]
[attachment=11334:business...ort_redd.pdf]
[attachment=11335:other_su...t_1_redd.pdf]
[attachment=11336:other_su...t_2_redd.pdf]
Letters in support and opposition to the rezoning request.
[attachment=11337:Comments...nd_Later.pdf]
Plea to assist Gold Rush in getting the rezoning application approved and several signed form letters in support
[attachment=11338:Support_...Comments.pdf]
The last three attachments appear to be responses to DRMS adequacy questions raised during their review of the 112 mining permit. The last one seems clairvoyant as it is dated one day before (July 19, 2017) a reply from the DRMS (July 20, 2017). eating-popcorn-03.gif
[attachment=11339:Fairplay...INED__1_.pdf]
[attachment=11340:Fairplay...INED__1_.pdf]
[attachment=11341:Fairplay...e_170721.pdf]

And finally, the Board of County Commissioners July 27, 2017 https://www.parkco.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_07272017-659, which lists everyone that testified at the hearing. The decision appears to have been delayed until the August 17, 2017 BOCC meeting because one of the commissioners left for a dental appointment.
[attachment=11343:Board_of..._Minutes.pdf]
For those wanting a Cliff Notes version, here is the link to the article in the August 4, 2017 issue of the Fairplay Flume http://www.theflume.com/free_content/article_fbeba770-7952-11e7-a4ec-db1865a51e4e.html. Thirteen people testified in support of the rezoning and 15 testified against. A friend and professional colleague was among those that testified.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Fairplay Flume article states that a mining engineer made a statement at the BOCC hearing that there was no public hearing in 1975. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Tonko that this should apparently be taken as true. Nor do I agree with his conclusion that the alleged absence of a public hearing means that the original zoning was illegal (and the implication that the residential zoning should be void ab initio). In many adversarial proceedings the opposing parties will resort to posturing during a hearing. There is no proof that the 1974 or 1975 zoning was illegal, only an assertion by an interested party that there was a problem. If you read through the Planning Commission staff report, the zoning for the last 44 years was residential. Nobody appears to have challenged that designation until HSA became aware in April that the Park County Planning Dept. had informed the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety of the zoning issue.

Zoning plan authority in Colorado is stipulated in C.R.S. 20-28-111.

QUOTE
(1) The county planning commission of any county may, and upon order by the board of county commissioners in any county having a county planning commission shall, make a zoning plan for all or any of the unincorporated territory within the county, including both the full text of the zoning resolution and the maps....

The original zoning map of 1974 was updated in 1998, which if there was an actual problem with the zoning designation it was likely "fixed" by the BOCC's resolution adopting the 1998 and later zoning maps. Since the rezoning request was granted by the BOCC on August 17, the point is now moot. One note regarding C.R.S. 30-28-111 is that the first note in the Annotation below the statute is this cite, 'Law reviews. For article, "Winning the Rezoning", see 11 Colo. Law. 634 (1982)'. One of the co-authors of that 1982 article in The Colorado Lawyer is Lee Phillips, the current Park County Attorney. The meeting minutes and Fairplay Flume article show that he was in attendance.

I'll post the final installment later today. It will discuss the BOCC August 17, 2017 meeting and a second Fairplay Flume article. That article includes what I believe is the reason the BOCC granted the rezoning request, which BTW includes 11 conditions that High Speed Aggregate, Inc. agreed to follow.

Posted by: Gene Kooper Dec 2 2017, 06:41 PM

And finally....

This post includes links and PDF files to the Board of County Commissioners August 17, 2017 https://www.parkco.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08172017-678?html=true and minutes and the article in the August 24, 2017 Fairplay Flume, http://www.theflume.com/free_content/article_66399f46-89ee-11e7-9853-b7b4dfb71d41.html

PDF files of the August 17, 2017 BOCC agenda and meeting minutes.
[attachment=11344:Board_of...ngAgenda.pdf]
[attachment=11345:Board_of..._Minutes.pdf]
There is minimal information in the above PDF files (included for completeness).

The August 24, 2017 article in the Fairplay Flume, however does provide information on the proceedings and the reasons the county commissioners and county attorney gave for approving the rezoning request. While some may feel that no conditions should have been included with rezoning approval it appears that several of them were proposed by High Speed Aggregate, Inc. Here is the list of conditions read by County Attorney, Lee Phillips to the County Commissioners just prior to their approval of the rezoning request.

QUOTE
1. Notify the county 48 hours before heavy equipment is transported over county roads.

2. Current driveways need to be registered and new permits pulled for any new driveways.

3. No mining activity within 100 feet of Platte Drive and 50 feet of the west and east property boundaries.

4. No mining activity between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. or on Sundays and federal holidays.

5. To reduce noise, sand must be in truck beds before loading.

6. Written notice to adjacent property owners 10 days before mine startup in spring and shutdown in the fall.

7. Report mining and reclamation status to the county upon completing mining, initial reclamation and successful reclamation of each phase.

8. Comply with state and local noise regulations.

9. Applicant may provide aggregate to Park County and adjacent property owners.

10. Provide sanitation facilities during mining operations.

11. Failure to comply with representations made at the hearing or any conditions will be a violation of the Land Use Regulations.

The other reason I believe that the rezoning was approved was stated by Commissioner Brazell (as quoted in the Fairplay Flume article).
QUOTE
Brazell said that if the property wasn’t rezoned, High Speed would not be required to reclaim the historic mine tailings.

It appears that several county residents were "disappointed" that the commissioners would not hear any additional testimony before rendering their decision. The Fairplay Flume article includes several questions by Mr. John (Skip) Kunst, Sr. regarding the process. Here is the money quote by Mr. Kuntz (another agenda item was whether to approve a marijuana facility in Grant).
QUOTE
The county’s business plan should include more than mining and marijuana.

Also, see the first link below for additional comments by Mr. Kunst who alleged at the BOCC meeting that the "approved" rezoning is illegal because the BOCC violated the state's open meeting laws!

In addition to the two Fairplay Flume articles I found four opinion letters about the rezoning. I decided not to give the Flume some cash to read them (they are behind a pay wall). In case anyone is interested in spending a few dollars, here are the links to those letters.
http://www.theflume.com/opinion/article_801a0288-8f62-11e7-8c01-2f0a1348a154.html
http://www.theflume.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_85a3b718-89f3-11e7-9f3e-63dc97370918.html
http://www.theflume.com/opinion/article_3fc54c10-8f62-11e7-8783-3f79d9ec8940.html
http://www.theflume.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_1b9d7358-8f62-11e7-8acf-cb02bf5e99ac.html

The author of the last letter seems to believe that Fairplay residents are not properly represented on the BOCC because they reside in Alma and Bailey.

Posted by: CP Dec 22 2017, 07:11 PM

QUOTE (ASTROBLEME @ Dec 1 2017, 08:48 AM) *
Thought you'd like to see this copy of the official USFS comments on the Park County Mine Re-Zoning issue. In my opinion, this is a good example of your concerns as the USFS doesn't have authority over "the television show" that is being filmed on private property. sadno.gif

Blaming "the television show" won't stop the problems for the USFS in that vicinity. My family has encountered illegal mining and claim jumping on our holdings in Park County on USFS lands for a long time. These problems occur at about the same rate as they always have. The show hasn't increased illegal activities beyond what we've seen historically. In fact, most of our claim jumping problems are from the non-mining public looking to steal some high grade gold. The best way to stop problems is to apprehend those involved and my family supports vigorous prosecution through the legal system.

I think "the television show" has increased awareness of mining issues and that is a good thing. 2c.gif

Glad to hear you've prevailed over the bureaucracy in your matter. thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

ASTROBLEME




Thanks Johnny I'm not surprised the county backed down with a weak excuse for their motion to dismiss concerning my issues. I am also glad that dealing with that is over and hopefully others will also learn the benefits of knowing where to take their stance as ownership applies in their domains. happy088.gif

Thanks for posting the USFS "official" letter of response too....... very interesting also to hear your personal opinion as a claim owner in the same area being exactly the opposite too. I'm glad to hear the show has not worsened the claim jumping that has occurred previously, that's good news!
I am wondering however why our tax dollars were used to have an "official USFS response" entered as it is posted for a "public comment". As you pointed out (and their own response acknowledges itself) that they should not have....or wouldn't even normally enter a comment. Just thought they would because of this shows exposure causing "an issue" ......but I guess that may not be the case as stated in the official USFS response.......anyone else wondering what the heck?! slaphead.gif research.gif chin.gif

Posted by: Clay Diggins Dec 24 2017, 12:49 PM

QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Dec 2 2017, 12:46 AM) *
Zoning plan authority in Colorado is stipulated in C.R.S. 20-28-111.
QUOTE
(1) The county planning commission of any county may, and upon order by the board of county commissioners in any county having a county planning commission shall, make a zoning plan for all or any of the unincorporated territory within the county, including both the full text of the zoning resolution and the maps....


Thanks for all your research Gene. thumbsupsmileyanim.gif
Just a few minor corrections to help others follow along.

I think you meant C.R.S. https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-30/county-planning-and-building-codes/article-28/part-1/section-30-28-111/? Title 20-28-111 is about district attorneys. Title 30 is Counties.

From that portion of the Title it is clear that the county planning commission has the right to make a plan as you pointed out. That plan probably is just work product until there is a public hearing if I'm reading the subsequent section of that same code right.
https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-30/county-planning-and-building-codes/article-28/part-1/section-30-28-112/
QUOTE
The county planning commission shall certify a copy of the plans for zoning all or any part of the unincorporated territory within the county, or any adopted part or amendment thereof or addition thereto, to the board of county commissioners of the county.  After receiving the certification of said zoning plans from the commission and before the adoption of any zoning resolutions, the board of county commissioners shall hold a public hearing thereon, the time and place of which at least fourteen days' notice shall be given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.  Such notice shall state the place at which the text and maps so certified by the county planning commission may be examined.  No substantial change in or departure from the text or map so certified by the county planning commission shall be made unless such change or departure is first submitted to the certifying county planning commission for its approval, disapproval, or suggestions and, if disapproved, shall receive the favorable vote of not less than a majority of the entire membership of the board of county commissioners.  The county planning commission shall have thirty days after such submission within which to send its report to the board of county commissioners.

I'm not sure how that would shake out if the Council (not the planning commission) adopted a subsequent plan based on a previous administrative misstep. Just pointing out plans are not defacto regulation when created. There is a requirement that County Planning Commission plans have a subsequent noticed public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners before they are adopted and become regulation.

Also I'm not sure that ignoring the requirement for a public hearing would be "illegal". Generally lapses in administrative procedural duties will result in the action being null and void ab initio and as such are outside administrative authority. Colorado administrative law may be different than the laws I'm familiar with. You might find the answer to that question by contacting the Park County Risk Management Office or by studying Colorado's administrative procedures act.

Posted by: Colorado Roots Dec 28 2017, 08:33 PM

With all things considered the fine is a drop in the bucket.

The money that they make on Advertising the production budget heck even what they get paid per episode 35 Grand is nothing!!


I think it's funny how they call it a "hefty" fine.

I'm sure it was worth the 35 Grand to open up more area for the mine.

eating-popcorn-03.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)