Laserfiche WebLink
vhltMMn V. LAvr*nem <br />Court: rile No. CT 93-12901 <br />Plaintiffs already have the full use and enjoyment of the roadway <br />easement over Tract E: Plaintiffs' home on Tract A presently has <br />access to County Road 6 by means of Tract E. Defendants contend <br />that extending the roadway into the northern portion of Tract E to <br />serve the northern portion of Tract A is, therefore, beyond the <br />scope of the contemplated easement. Defendants appear to make two <br />arguments in this regard: first. Defendants appear to argue that <br />the 1976 deed and the 1978 easement agreement prohibit Plaintiffs <br />from subdividing Tract A; and second. Defendants argue that the <br />parties to the easement agreement contemplated use of the roadway <br />by only one residence per tract. Defendants therefore contend that <br />Plaintiffs' apparent desire to subdivide Tract A and subject Tract <br />E to use of the roadway by the subdivided lots is not supported by <br />the language of the 1976 deed and the 1978 easement agreement. <br />At the hearing on this motion, however. Defendants <br />acknowledged that the deed and the easement agreement do not <br />purport to limit Plaintiffs' ability to subdivide Tract A. Rather, <br />Defendants contend that local zoning ordinances governing <br />Plaintiffs' property will not allow subdivision of Tract A. The <br />issue of the application of local zoning ordineinces to the <br />potential subdivision of Tract A, however, is not properly before <br />the Court. Further, to the extent Defendants contend that <br />Plaintiffs may not subdivide their property on account of the 1976 <br />deed and the 1978 easement agreement, such an interpretation of <br />i ^