In an affidavit, Pigeon averred, in relevant part:
The lack of access to the island also creates a toxic threat to the environment and waterway in the event of a fire cause[d] by hazards on the island that would not be able to be easily reach[ed] or extinguished by emergency services. The island is only a couple hundred feet from the nearest woods [on the mainland], and [approximately] 560 feet from my property. The wind could easily carry ash or embers and ignite the surrounding forestland based upon publically [sic] available information. I feel this is a direct threat and it . . . [has] caused me great anxiety over the years as to my personal safety, the safety of others and the well-being of my property, which includes my personal residence.
We know this because, in the course of the deposition of the Appellant, Jeffrey Pigeon, the following exchange occurred:
MR. BENGTSON (Page 92 Lines 8 through 11): “What I’m asking you to tell me is what you want to see happen as a result of this case, what is the – what is your goal in filing this litigation, from a layman’s perspective?”
…
MR. PIGEON (page 93, line 4): “I want him gone.”
MR. BENGTSON (page 93, lines 24-25): “Sure. You stated you wanted him gone and I asked you do you want the structures gone?”
MR. PIGEON (page 94, line 1): “Structures gone.”
MR. BENGTSON (page 94, lines 2-3): “Okay. And is that – and then I further asked you is that the only thing that will satisfy you?”
MR. PIGEON (page 94, line 4): “Yes.”