Opinion ID: 2805588
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contents of the Emails

Text: The first email (Exhibit B) indicates that Bouffault is attaching a[n applicable] Conservation Easement document, where you will see on the 5th page the highlighted paragraph that would appear to prohibit a commercial dog kennel on the easement. Plaintiffs allege that Bouffault knew or should have known that the conservation easement authority had communicated its approval of the use detailed in the special use permit application. They allege that her statement was false, misleading, tending to indicate that Schaecher was a law breaker or a person of disregard for . . . legal obligations, and intended to harm the reputation of Happy Tails. 9 Another disputed email (Exhibit D) pertains to property covenant restrictions in the deed regarding dwelling size: Bouffault states that the plan for the property does not meet the requirements. Two emails from Bouffault (Exhibits E and F) pertain to county ordinances regarding single-family detached dwellings on residential properties. Bouffault states that the caretaker's residence does not meet the ordinance requirements, and further states her understanding that the Schaecher family will not be immediately moving to the property, which Bouffault asserts changes the nature of the application. Finally, an email from Bouffault to Schaecher, copied to Planning Commission members (Exhibit H), raises Bouffault's concerns over breaches in private covenants.