Laserfiche WebLink
Vhxt»*n V, iMttzmnc* <br />Court; Fil* Bo. CT F3-129Q1 <br />BUIiii'tenance cos^s and taxas associated with the roedway over Tract <br />E. Despite modification of the cost and tax sharing structure, the <br />scope of the then existing easesent remained substantially the saaie <br />as the prior easement: <br />(t]hat Tract E ... is subject to a non-exclusive <br />easement agreement in favor of Tracts A, C and D . . . <br />for driveway purposes and access to County Road No. 6 and <br />for utilities. Provided further that the costs of the <br />maintenance and repair of and taxes upon said Tract E <br />shall be borne by the owners of Tracts A, C and D . . . <br />dependent upon use proportionate to linear usages of <br />Tract E coiqputed after a residence has been constructed <br />on a particular tract or lot. Further, the o%mer of each <br />tract or lot shall be responsible for repair of any <br />daauige caused to the road by him or his agent or <br />contractor. <br />The Whitiums conveyed Tract A 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. 1 VII, Ex. F; <br />Edith Whitman Aff. f 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 witten consent of Defendants. <br />Defendants have refused to provide that consent, (John Whitman <br />Aff. T X). 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 <br />(