05-09-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

arftiCJMUi r. LMvrrnacm Court ril* 1». CT 93-13901 Plaintiffs alrsady hava tha full use and enjoyment of the roadway easement over Tract E: Plaintiffs* home on Tract A presently has access to County Road 6 by means of Tract E. Defendants contend that extending the roadway into the northern portion of Tract E to serve the northern portion of Tract A is, therefore, beyond the scope of the contemplated easement. Defendants appear to make two arguments in this regard: first. Defendants appear to argue that the 1976 deed and the 1978 easement agreement prohibit Plaintiffs from subdividing Tract A; and second. Defendants argue that the parties to the easement agreement contemplated use of the roadway only one residence per tract. Defendants therefore contend that Plaintiffs' apparent desire to subdivide Tract A and subject Tract ,E to use of the roadway by the subdivided lots is not supported by the language of the 1976 deed and the 1978 easement agreement. At the hearing on this motion, however. Defendants Acknowledged that the deed and the easement agreement do not purport to limit Plaintiffs' ability to subdivide Tract A. Rather, Defendants contend that local zoning ordinances governing Plaintiffs' property will not allow subdivision of Tract A. The issue of the application of local zoning ordinances to the potential subdivision of Tract A, however, is not properly before the Court. Further, to the extent Defendants contend that Plaintiffs may not subdivide their property on account of the 1976 deed and the 1978 easement agreement, such an interpretation of