I have no idea what the underlying disagreement here may be. I do recall a discussion that came up several years ago about a disputed easement on battlefield property. The easement called for the property to be maintained as agricultural land. So far, so good. But years go by, and Farmer Bob sells to Farmer Phil who sells to Farmer John, whose son decides he wants to turn the historic cornfield into chicken or hog houses, or a manure holding pit, or greenhouses, or a series of barns and workships, all of which are arguably agricultural in nature. The context of that discussion was the learning curve for the attorneys for the preservation groups about the need to be fairly prescriptive in the terms. I wonder if something like this is going on here.
The Stonewall Jackson issue seems to be a red herring. The conservation easement predated the lady's purchase. She was, again, a willing buyer. She is in fact claiming that the easement increased the purchase price from $100,000 to $425,000. That's an odd claim to be making in this kind of dispute. Usually there is a tax benefit to the property owner, as the easement should in theory tend to lower the property value. It sounds to me like she's trumping up a belated fraud claim in order to bust the easement. FWIW, if Jackson's brigade camped there, the owner of the property at the time the easement was sold was perfectly justified in claiming that "Jackson camped here." This is not the same thing as saying that "Stonewall pitched his personal tent on this spot." The story doesn't make clear which claim was made. But that issue pertains to the sale of the easement long before this lady was involved. It is irrelevant to any dispute she has with the owner of the easement.
Loudoun County is now a battleground. The sprawl has swallowed Leesburg. Local officials blow back and forth each election on the sprawl vs. conservation zoning issues. I am glad the various conservancies have locked in some open space/greenspace, and not just on battlefields. DC is quite big enough already. YMMV.
Piedmont paid market value for the property, then raised money from donors to offset the reduction in value to the property from the easement. They sold the property at a reduced price to Boneta.
And you are right, she has been trying to bust the easement since day one.
The first conflict was over the apartment. She was allowed to build a 2200 sq ft apt in the barn, but the barn was her money maker and she was leasing it out for events so she began building the apt in the blacksmith building. They caught her and took her to court and she lost.
Then the county got on her because of inadequate parking. When she would lease for an event, those attending the event would have to park in the street and the neighbors complained. Also, she didn't have the bathrooms needed for leasing to large groups.
Also, the county regulated how much buy-out inventory she was allowed to have relative to how much she produced. As a farm store or produce store, she had to sell a certain amount of produce that she actually grew on site. But she was buying large amounts of knick knacks for resell and exceeded the limits.
Boneta then claimed that Piedmont and the county were conspiring against her.
They last I saw of this story was when Piedmont was trying to install a video camera somewhere on the property so they could monitor what was going on without having to actually inspect the property. Piedmont claimed her attempts in not following the covenants were so pervasive, it had become a full time job trying to keep an eye on her. At that time they were headed back to court.