Easements”) with each driveway leading to one of two private streets in the development. <br />According to the JAM, homes on lots 1, 2, 6 and 7 will share a driveway; homes on parcels <br />4,5,9 and 10 will share a driveway; homes on 9, 10, 13 and 14 will share a driveway; (lots 9 <br />and 10 have access to two driveways) homes on 18, 20 and 21 will share a driveway, and <br />homes on lots 25, 27, 28, 29 and 32 will share a driveway. Lots 30 and 31 will share a <br />driveway; and lots 33, 36 and 37 will share a driveway. <br /> In a case where a single-family home is constructed on each lot, that could mean <br />between four and ten (or more) vehicles sharing a driveway. In the case of multi-unit housing, <br />it will mean several times that estimate. <br /> Further, the JAM states that in each shared situation, one homeowner will both “maintain <br />the Driveway in good condition,” and “maintain any Utilities shared by all of the Benefitted <br />Owners in good condition.” The future owners of lots 5, 7, 10, 21, 31, 32 and 33 are <br />designated as the responsible parties for these considerable tasks, with the burden of <br />continued upkeep passing along to subsequent future owners of those lots. <br /> This “assignment” of responsibilities for a shared right-of-way creates a host of issues: It <br />anticipates giving those duties to individuals without experience or qualifications in driveway <br />or utility maintenance. It relies on the naïve assumption that homeowners, who typically seek <br />good relations with their neighbors, will monitor for driveway and utility issues and challenge <br />the ‘responsible’ homeowner to deal with the repair process. It does not consider a situation <br />where the lot designated as the one responsible for maintenance is slow to sell or is still <br />unsold before others in the driveway cluster. Compounding the issue, the added responsibility <br />of driveway maintenance could make these lots less attractive to buyers. <br /> Another issue of grave concern, along with lack of detail, is the width of these shared <br />driveways. In two instances, the width of the Joint Access Easement delineated in the JAM <br />does not match the width shown on the site plan. <br /> According to the JAM, the Joint Access Easement serving lots 1, 2, 6 and 7 will be of <br />“variable width.” However, the site map shows the driveway as 14 feet wide. <br /> The JAM states the Joint Access Easement serving lots 4, 5, 9 and 10 as of “variable <br />width.” The site map uses the same language. <br /> The JAM shows the Joint Access Easement serving lots 9, 10, 13 and 14 is 14’ wide. The <br />site map shows the driveway as 14’ wide. <br /> The JAM shows the Joint Access Easement serving lots 18, 20 and 21 as 14’ wide. The site <br />map shows this driveway as 14’ wide. <br /> The JAM shows the Joint Access Easement serving lots 25, 27, 28, 29 and 32 as “variable <br />width.” The site map also states it is of “variable width.” <br /> The JAM shows the Joint Access Easement serving lots 30 and 31 as 14’ wide. The site <br />map shows the shared driveway as 14’ wide. <br /> The JAM shows the Joint Access Easement serving lots 33, 36 and 37 as of “variable <br />width.” The site map shows it as 14’ wide. <br /> Whether the driveways in this crowded development in a high fire risk area are to be 14’ <br />feet in width or of “variable width,” both situations are concerning. The 14’ width would <br />make it a challenge for a moving van to navigate this passageway. It is insufficient all but two <br />compact or mid-size cars to pass each other on the driveway. Further, the term “variable