Persson-Mokvist also contends that the court should have entered a general declaration that plat note 21 is valid and enforceable and that it prohibits all commercial uses of lots in the subdivision. This contention lacks merit. The trial court appropriately addressed whether the uses of the subdivision by appellees violated the plat and found that they did not. No other or further declaration was necessary or appropriate. The interpretation of the plat note is a question of law.
Questions of law are subject to de novo review.
Since the subdivision lots may be used for multiple unit dwellings, while homesite entry lots are restricted to single units, the homesite entry regulations might properly be viewed with liberality when applied to the Peters Creek lots. This argument misapprehends the nature of the incidental uses provision. The provision permits certain commercial activities. This is not relevant to the dog-related activities in this case, since they were found to be primarily recreational. Further, the dog- related activities are justified as a recreational use, rather than as a residential use so the regulation defining incidents to residential usage is not applicable.