The McConnells bought a home in Sherwood Estates. The land was subject to a restrictive covenant that “no building, fence, or other structure” could be built on the land without the approval of the developer of the property. The McConnells built a dog pen in their yard that consisted of a cement base with fencing surrounding the base. They claimed that approval was not required on the theory that the restrictive covenant did not apply because it showed an intent to restrict only major construction, not minor additions to the landscape. A lawsuit was brought to compel the McConnells to remove the dog pen because prior approval had not been obtained. Are restrictive covenants applied this expansively to homeowners? Must the McConnells have prior approval? [Sherwood Estates Homes Ass’n, Inc. v. McConnell, 714 S.W.2d 848 (Mo. App.)]