” Charter Club, etc., supra at 900, 689 S.E.2d 344 (punctuation omitted); see Roberts v. Lee, 289 Ga.App. 714, 716(1), 658 S.E.2d 258 (2008); Licker, supra at 875(2)(a), 558 S.E.2d 31 (a trial court erred by strictly construing restrictive covenants without considering the entire document, recognizing that effect is to be given to the intention of the parties as shown by the language of the whole instrument, considered with the object of the parties in making the restrictions).Licker, supra at 874(2), 558 S.E.2d 31.
Smith, P. J., and Bernes, J., concur. See Roberts v. Lee, 289 Ga. App. 714, 717 (3) ( 658 SE2d 258) (2008) (trial court has broad discretion to fashion equitable remedies based on the exigencies of each case and should craft an injunction that is least oppressive to the defendant but protects the plaintiff's rights). PHIPPS, Judge.
This clause supports a conclusion that Empire Estates intended to preclude commercial activity because it indicates a desire to preserve aesthetics while accommodating those property owners who might keep commercial vehicles at home for purposes of convenience, along with avoiding the difficult question of whether simply parking a commercial vehicle on a property is an activity that is consistent with a residential use. Cf. Roberts v. Lee , 289 Ga. App. 714, 716, 658 S.E.2d 258 (2008) ("[The defendant] was using his residential property to advance his business interests by consistently parking a dump truck and other [commercial use] vehicles in his driveway. This finding was supported by photographic evidence demonstrating that [the defendant's] activities directly undermined the residential character of the property intended to be preserved by the [c]ovenants."); Roberts v. Bridges , Docket No. M2010-01356-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 1884614, *9 (Tenn. App. May 17, 2011) (parking of large tour bus and panel trucks on defendant homeowners’ property "in the furtherance of [their] music business constituted use of the property for commercial purposes," given frequency and disruptive nature of activity); Fowler v. Loucks , 133 Wash.App. 1020, ––––, ––– P.3d ––––, 2006 WL 1633708, *4 (2006) (decision without published opinion, 133 Wash. App. 1020, ––– P.3d –––– ) (concluding that "parking a work vehicle at a residence does not violate the residential use restriction because it
We agree with the trial court that the gathering of employees, the parking of their vehicles for extended periods, the parking of the large tour bus, and the parking of panel trucks on Homeowners' property solely in the furtherance of Mr. Bridges's music business constituted use of the property for commercial purposes. C.f. Roberts v. Lee, 658 S.E.2d 258, 260-61 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (holding the constant parking of a dump truck and other commercial-use vehicles violated a restrictive covenant permitting use of the property "for residential purposes only" and specifically prohibiting commercial use). The alternative to conducting these activities on Homeowners' property would require Mr. Bridges to compensate the owner of a commercial parking lot or storage facility for the same benefits.