Opinion ID: 2320694
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Proposed Roadway Over Lot 1

Text: [¶ 11] The Superior Court determined that the intended use of the proposed roadway across Lot 1 was not to service a single-family residence, but instead to service an entire subdivision of residences. The court concluded that such a use was not a single-family residential purpose, and was, therefore, violative of the plain language of the residential use covenant in the deed. [¶ 12] The language of the restrictive covenant contained in the deeds is unambiguous. It provides that [n]o lot shall be improved or used except for single family residential purposes. Citing Boehner v. Briggs, 528 A.2d 451 (Me.1987), ALC argues that the construction of the road on Lot 1 is permissible under the language of the restrictive use covenant provided that the road services only single-family residences and not multi-family dwellings or commercial structures. Boehner, however, involved a building restriction, not a use restriction. The restriction in Boehner goes to the type of dwelling, whereas the restriction within the Coulthard Farms deeds goes to the use of the lot in general. The proposed use of Wiley Farms is irrelevant to whether the roadway complies with the lot's use restriction. The use of Lot 1 for construction of a roadway to access another subdivision is inconsistent with the single-family residential use restriction that ALC imposed on all lots in the Coulthard Farms subdivision, including Lot 1. [¶ 13] Based on the plain language of ALC's deed restrictions, we affirm the Superior Court's determination that ALC's proposed construction of a roadway would violate the restrictive covenant within the deed.