From: Jeffrey <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 3:52 PM To: Craig Martin Subject: Re: I initially it was one hun=red feet , Brice you and Tom were at the table , I said that would not work=ad we neededto get behind it .1 said make it 80 it was 100 , twenty f=ot for road . Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone On Jun 5, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Craig Martin rote: <=div> I never recall saying that there would be a 20' road. You tried to bully me this morning to say that. The only discussion I recall is that there was to be a road around b=ilding. Which there is. I spoke with Tom and Brice t=is morning. They do not recall any conversation on a 20' road. </=iv> I have documented e-mail from Brice that you were copied on t=at says pad was to be 80'. There is no documentation=for a 20' road. You saw the layout before it was pou=ed. From: Jeffrey <jeevaca ti on mail com> To: Craig Martin Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Once again Craig that is because I was to=d by you that that would leave twenty feet. With that fact which again you s=id only this morning you and Tom had measured turned out not to be the case=nbsp; Sorry for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone On J=n 5, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Craig Martin rote: Ok I have documented e-mail traffic approving the 40=80 pad. You were here when it was laid out.</=iv> With the approved design of 80 ft that was the way it would f=t. EFTA_R1_00079945 EFTA01769383