ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Gold Rush Next Season, Hoffman crew tears up Colorado (Literally)
Gene Kooper
post Dec 1 2017, 11:23 PM
Post #16


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



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 Meeting Agenda.

[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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Dec 2 2017, 01:46 AM
Post #17


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



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 Meeting Agenda.
[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 Meeting Minutes, 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 Decision on residential to mining rezoning postponed until Aug. 17. 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Dec 2 2017, 06:41 PM
Post #18


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



And finally....

This post includes links and PDF files to the Board of County Commissioners August 17, 2017 meeting agenda and minutes and the article in the August 24, 2017 Fairplay Flume, Residential rezoned to mining

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.
Residential to mining rezoning - an opinion High Speed zoning change is unlawful Posted: Friday, September 1, 2017 4:11 pm
LETTER: More mining concerns Posted: Friday, August 25, 2017 6:14 pm
LETTER: More concerns over rezoning Posted: Friday, September 1, 2017 4:09 pm
LETTER: Mine rezoning decision Posted: Friday, September 1, 2017 4:08 pm

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Dec 22 2017, 07:11 PM
Post #19


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



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

[attachment=11316:USFS_Com...y_Zoning.jpg]


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


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Dec 24 2017, 12:49 PM
Post #20


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



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. 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.
30-28-112 Certification of plan - hearings
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Colorado Roots
post Dec 28 2017, 08:33 PM
Post #21


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 28-December 17
Member No.: 139,420



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
5 User(s) are reading this topic (5 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 03:35 PM