(Emphasis added.) Finally, paragraph 13 of the Restrictions states that “[n]o structure shall be commenced or erected on any of said lots” unless approved, either affirmatively or by default, by the architectural committee, “[pjrovided ... that the design, location and the kind of materials and the building to be built on said lot shall be governed by all of the restrictions herein set forth and said building shall be in harmony with existing buildings and structure 193, 197-98 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1959) (interpreting restrictive covenants to manifest an intent to preserve the residential character of the properties, which included the prohibition of constructing roads, especially roads not bene-fitting the property owners); see also Rush v. Miller, 21 Wash.App. 156, 584 P.2d 960, 963 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Hanley v. Misischi, 111 R.I. 233, 302 A.2d
holding where exempt organization was in possession of real property under land contract obligating organization to pay the purchase price and use land for exempt purpose the association was the owner of the land within the meaning of the statute holding that a roadway benefitting land outside the subdivision was not a residential purpose and was therefore a violation of the restrictive covenant holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable holding that a restrictive covenant with worldwide restrictions on competition is not reasonable holding that a roadway is a structure and its construction would violate the restrictive covenant limiting the land to residential purposes