Opinion ID: 1974573
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Explicit Restrictions Differ Numbered Lots/Quarry Parcel

Text: The record reflects that there are no restrictions on development stated on the plot plan for North Hills, Section C, and there is no `blanket' Declaration of Restrictions on record with regard to the North Hills Subdivision, Section C. However, the record also reflects that each of the out conveyances from Booker, the original developer of North Hills, including the Numbered Lots in Section C, expressly contains, or incorporates by reference, numerous covenants and restrictions (the Numbered Lot restrictions) in the same or substantially the same language. Included in every deed to the Numbered Lots is a restriction on use of land, which states in part: The land in the entire North Hills tract shall be used for residence purposes only and no building of any kind whatsoever shall be erected or maintained thereon except private, single or semi-detached dwelling houses and private garages for the sole use of the respective owners or occupants of the plots upon which such are erected. In 1963, Booker deeded the Quarry Parcel to Weiner's predecessor in title without the Numbered Lot restrictions and subject only to the following use restriction: SUBJECT also to the restriction and covenant running with the land that none of said tract will be used or maintained for any quarrying operations and said land shall be limited strictly to residential uses and purposes. Consequently, the stipulated record reflects that the restrictive covenants imposed by Booker upon the Quarry Parcel and the Numbered Lots limited the development of those properties to residential purposes. However, the record also reflects that the restrictive covenant imposed by Booker upon the Numbered Lots further limited the type of residential use to private, single or semi-detached dwelling houses.... Thus, the restrictive covenants imposed by Booker in the deeds to the Numbered Lots are more narrowly tailored then the restriction Booker placed upon the Quarry Parcel. The former restrictions specifically circumscribe the type of residential use allowed. The Court of Chancery found that there was no evidence to support a contention that the use of the Quarry Parcel is explicitly restricted to private, single or semidetached, residential dwellings. That finding is supported by the record. It is not challenged by Krapf in this appeal.