Laserfiche WebLink
17. Upon information and belief, fill material imported to the Property by <br />Defendant does not comply with requirements of the MLR Permit; specifically, the fill <br />material contains large chunks - not fragments - of asphalt. <br />18. Upon information and belief, fill material imported to the Property by <br />Defendant does not comply with requirements of the ADCO Permit because it <br />contains more than negligible amounts of asphalt and concrete, and, at two feet and <br />above the water table, is not a mixture of "inert clean soils and crusher fines. <br />19. Defendant damaged and buried one of the three wells identified in the <br />Reimbursement Agreement. <br />20. In September 2009 Plaintiff informed Defendant that the Initial <br />Drainage Plan submitted in the application for the ADCO permit was unacceptable, <br />because it did not facilitate future development of the site. Specifically, the initial <br />drainage plan did not raise all the surface of the Property out of the floodplain. <br />21. The parties resolved the dispute in 2010, by amending the Contract to <br />require Defendant to import sufficient fill onto the Property to reach a specific <br />elevation. To mark such elevation (the "Fill Elevation") and memorialize the Contract <br />amendment ("Fill Elevation Amendment"), Plaintiff, in the presence of <br />representatives of Defendant, marked a metal pole placed on the Property (the <br />"Memorial Pole") at a height thereon indicating the Fill Elevation. At the same time, <br />Plaintiff installed riser pipe to a well to establish the fill elevation on the west edge of <br />the Property. <br />22. At the end of 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant discussed the creation of a <br />post mining drainage plan for the Property to reflect the amended contract. <br />Defendant provided Plaintiff with the contact information for the engineer and <br />surveyor who created the Initial Drainage Plan, and invited Plaintiff to contact them <br />to create a revised plan by September 2014, so that Defendant could reclaim the site <br />by December 2014. <br />23. At its sole expense, Plaintiff created a revised post mining drainage <br />plan (the "Final Drainage Plan"), and in September 2014 submitted it to ADCO and <br />Defendant. <br />24. ADCO approved the Final Drainage Plan on September 29, 2014. <br />25. On or about September 29, 2014, Plaintiff submitted the Final Drainage <br />Plan to Defendant. <br />26. The Final Drainage Plan required a one percent grade, dropping from <br />west to east across the Property, with a fill elevation at the Memorial Pole as marked. <br />27. On October 8, 2014, in the presence of representatives of Plaintiff, Gary <br />4 <br />