for loss of visibility if the loss arose directly from changes that occurred on the property taken. Id. at 344, 693 A.2d 864. Similarly, in Pub. Serv. Elect. & Gas v. Oldwick, 125 N.J.Super. 31, 34-35, 308 A.2d 362 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 64 N.J. 153, 313 A.2d 213 (1973), a property owner, over whose property a utility company condemned an easement for passage of transmission lines, sought severance damages for value lost due to the construction of three large towers on nearby land. The court held that the property owner could not recover damages arising from the total project, but instead was entitled to compensation only for damages caused by the use of the land actually taken from him. Id. at 36-38, 308 A.2d 362; see also, Dikert, supra, 319 N.J.Super. at 324, 725 A.2d 119 (<HOLDING>). Following this reasoning, defendants here
holding servient estate had no right to close or lock gate which existed prior to creation of nonexclusive access easement because it interfered with purpose of easement holding that the dominant tenement a power company rather than the servient tenement had affirmative duties of inspection and repair related to its easement holding that permanent easement arising from condemnation of pipeline easement reduced property value by 20 holding that language of easement did not support restrictive interpretation proposed by landowner owners of servient estate holding that owners of access easement had no claim for severance damages arising from condemnation of servient tenement