Gold Rush Next Season, Hoffman crew tears up Colorado (Literally) Options

[Crusty]

GOLD RUSH Todd Hoffman’s Colorado gold mine facing thousands in fines

[Gene Kooper]

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.

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.

Thanks for the update on that Johnny. 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.
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. 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.

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).

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.