By Robert King -- Daily Staff Writer

FRONT ROYAL — Some Front Royal residents say the relocation of Mary's Shady Lane will cause them severe economic hardship.

The residents are defendants in a lawsuit over the relocation of the unpaved easement used as an entrance and exit point from Happy Creek Road. Some defendants have said if the easement is moved it will be a strain economically through gas expenses and wear and tear on cars.

F&R Limited, which claims it owns land that Mary's Shady Lane crosses, is asking the court to extinguish the rights of more than 100 property owners to the easement. It wants to move the easement so it has direct access to Shenandoah Shores Road.

The easement's current location "makes it slightly difficult to coordinate a reasonable development," Michael Coughlin, a Prince William County-based attorney representing F&R, has said.

The national homebuilder Centex Homes was part of the lawsuit when it was originally filed in 2006.

At the time, Centex was behind a proposed 1,862-home development off Happy Creek Road. The easement relocation was central to the developer's plans.

Centex withdrew the proposed development in December 2006 because of a poor housing market.

The company remained a plaintiff in the lawsuit, but petitioned the court in April to be removed. F&R wished to continue the lawsuit, and filed an amended complaint the same month.

F&R asked the court to dismiss and add some defendants based on land record research. The town of Front Royal was among the dismissed defendants.

Circuit Court Judge Dennis L. Hupp granted an order of publication in late June. Advertisements were published in a local newspaper alerting defendants, and letters were sent to all defendants.

The defendants have until Friday to respond to the lawsuit. Some defendants have already responded.

"I will never give up our right of way; this would burden us beyond words," wrote George E. Shafer, who lives at 302 Windy Knoll Drive.

Many defendants wrote in their responses that by moving the road, it would increase the cost of driving to town.

The relocation may also take emergency personnel longer to get to the area, some defendants wrote.

"By taking our right of way, you are subtracting the only real good way to town for emergency services," wrote Carmen B. Denny of 357 Harris Drive.

Some defendants also claimed Mary's Shady Lane isn't merely a private easement, but a public road or right of way the residents have access to.

Glen and Gerturde Purdy, who live on 331 Harris Drive, claim in their response the easement is a pre-Byrd Act road.

The Byrd Act was established in 1932, and created the secondary road system in Virginia. It gave counties the option of placing secondary roads under management of the Virginia Department of Transportation.

The road cannot be vacated and relocated by the court per state law, the response reads. The Warren County Board of Supervisors would have to make a decision after a public hearing, according to the Purdy's response.

F&R writes in its complaint the relocation "will not result in economic damage coming to any of the defendants."

Once the construction of a travel surface is completed, the defendants will have a safer crossing over a Norfolk Southern rail line, the complaint reads.

But many defendants deny that, and ask that if the court grants the relocation, it make F&R build one or more grade-separated crossings of the line.

* Contact Robert King at rking@nvdaily.com