It's indicated here that "the dominant owner of an easement has the burden of maintenance and repair, and to this end has an implied secondary easement to enter the servient property to perform the necessary maintenance and repair."
I can't speculate as to what he's going to allege in relation to the understanding that existed at the time of the easement, or whether what he paid is consistent with personal or heavier use. I can say that you did not include any restriction in the language of the easement that would limit its use to personal use by the owner.
You can research statutes here and case law here or here (among other places).

