fences, or other obstacles were placed across the roadway. It was openly used for ingress and egress from 1985 until Ferrara’s obstacles were built in 2006. There is nothing in the record to suggest that there are uses for the easement property other than to provide access to landlocked property owners. Where, as here, an easement is granted to provide abutting landowners access to a roadway, and no gates existed prior to the grant of the easement, “it is evident access to the roadway was to be unobstructed.” Calvert, 875 S.W.2d at 485 (finding made in absence of deed language specifying dominant estate had free and unrestricted access); Hilburn v. Providian Holdings, Inc., No. 01-06-00961-CV, 2008 WL 4836840, at **1, 4 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem.op.) (<HOLDING>); Burns v. McDaniel, 158 S.W.2d 826, 827
recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance recognizing that the dominant easement owner not the servient estate owner bears responsibility for maintaining an easement holding that the burden on the servient estate cannot be increased without the consent of the owners of the servient estate and that the owner of the dominant estate to which the appurtenant easement is attached has no power to convey or expand use of that easement in connection with a tract of land owned by another 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 an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement