Laserfiche WebLink
vhicJiMJi V. ZMvrencmCourt File No. C7 93-12901 <br />nainten^nce costs and taxes associated with the roadway over Tract <br />E. Despite modification of the cost and tax sharing structure, the <br />scope of the then existing easement remained substantially the same <br />as the prior easement: <br />^ 4. r is subject to a non-exclusive <br />[tlhat Tract E . . • * r>f'^Tracts A. C and D . . . <br />easement access to County Road No. 6 and <br />for fu^er that the costs of the <br />* ri T*«»nair of and taxes upon said Tra»-t E maintenance *^®P of Tracts A, C and D . . • <br />shall be borne by the o'™"® ^ linear usages of <br />dependent has ^een constructed <br />Tract E ff"P““j.^VcVor lot! Further, the owner of each <br />on « P*;^^=“^*"3h”rbe responsible for repair of any <br />S^tte cais°e^ the* roal by him or his agent or <br />contractor. <br />The Whitmans conveyed Tract h to Plaintiffs on January 21, 1980. <br />The deed conveying Tract A to Plaintiffs expressly included "a non­ <br />exclusive easement for driveway purposes and access to County Road <br />NO. 6 and for utilities ..." (John Whitman Aff. i VII, Ex. F; <br />Edith Whitman Aff. 1 IX). <br />Plaintiffs now wish to extend the present roadway over Tract <br />E into the northern undeveloped portion of the tract. Plaintiffs <br />have applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to <br />extend the roadway, but the city has refused to consider <br />Plaintiffs- application without the written consent of Defendants. <br />Defendants have refused to provide that consent. (John Whitman <br />Aff. IX). in a letter to Plaintiffs- counsel, however, an <br />attorney for the city indicated it would accept Plaintiffs- <br />application if Plaintiffs are able to obtain a declaratory judgment