From: Melissa Kingston <MKingston@fflawoffice.com> Date: October 28, 2012, 12:00:34 PM CDT To: Brittany Bailey <bbailey@hrhoustongroup.

com> Cc: "Holmes, Lashondra" <lashondra.holmes@dallascityhall.com>, "sbranan@greenbrookhomesdfw.com" <sbranan@greenbrookhomesdfw.com>, "Philip Kingston" <pkingston@kingstonpllc.com>, Belmont Addition <belmontaddition@yahoo.com>, Melissa Kingston <MKingston@fflawoffice.com> Subject: RE: 5902 Goliad - Supplemental Appeal to BOA Brittany,

We attempted to discuss this with you before your plans were approved and again before we filed the Board of Adjustment appeal, and you refused. Following our meeting last week, we anticipated receiving some color renderings with your builders ideas for changes to the plans because thats what he said he was going to do. We never received that proposal, though we have asked for it twice now. So were confused that you want a proposal from us. Our concerns really remain the same as they have been from the beginning: partial story above grade and the driveway size and location. Here are some of the solutions that we specifically discussed at our meeting that would address these concerns:

1.

Raise the garage from below grade to grade level and move the entry to the alley. This will eliminate the side yard garage driveway access issue as well and eliminate the need for the partial story between the first full story and the grade. And this will be less expensive from a construction perspective. Or

2.

Move the garage to the rear of the lot if you want to keep side yard access. Again, this solves the driveway access width issue (though the garage will still need a 20 side yard setback). This also eliminates the need for a partial story between the first full story and the grade.

If we did not do a good job at explaining these as alternative options at our meeting, I apologize. I was my impression, however, that you understood these were options but did not want to explore them because you dont like them. Again, if we misinterpreted your response, I apologize. If either of these options are workable for you, then lets sit down and work through the details. If, however, you are looking for us to simply agree to a variance, we are not willing to entertain that. While we have at times worked out alternative resolutions with builders, those instances have only been when new issues to our ordinance have arisen and construction was underway, and we tried to resolve those disputes in a way that would (a) not be precedent for future similar disputes and (b) actually offer a framework for avoiding similar disputes in the

future. For instance, when we had a dispute with Jeff Baron over his house at 5946 Palo Pinto, while we did not seek to have him tear down his house, we did secure an agreement from him that he would not do the objectionable aspects of that house again in BACD. Further, this case is different because we began trying to educate you and your builder about the BACD ordinance requirements long before your plans were approved. We feel like we have done everything we can do to head off this dispute at the pass without much success.

We continue to regret that our disagreement is holding up your project, but as we discussed at the meeting, the ordinance is something we value highly. If you have a proposal you would like us to review, please send it to me. I do not understand what you proposed with regard to the 10 driveway do you have a diagram you can send us reflecting that proposal? Our group will respond pretty quickly. We look forward to hearing from you and coming up with a solution here.

Thanks.

Melissa

Melissa R. Kingston | Esq. Friedman & Feiger, LLP | 5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200, Dallas, Texas 75254 Tel: 972-788-1400 | Direct Dial: 972-450-7308 | Fax: 972-776-5313 |mkingston@fflawoffice.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained in this email is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (972-788-1400) and destroy the original message. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE NOTICE - Submitting authorization through email correspondence constitutes your electronic signature. Any record containing an electronic signature shall be deemed for all purposes to have been "signed" and will constitute an "original" when printed from electronic records established and maintained by Friedman & Feiger, LLP in the normal course of business.

From: Brittany Bailey [mailto:bbailey@hrhoustongroup.com] Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:06 PM To: Melissa Kingston Cc: Duerksen, Todd; Holmes, Lashondra; sbranan@greenbrookhomesdfw.com; Philip Kingston; Melissa Kingston; Belmont Addition Subject: Re: 5902 Goliad - Supplemental Appeal to BOA

I have to say that my husband and I are quite perplexed with the true objectives of this committee in the Belmont Addition. After filing an appeal to the Board of Adjustment you asked us to meet with the committee as you believed by meeting we could come to a resolution without attending the Board hearing. We met with the committee in the hopes of resolution as well; however, when we sat down at the meeting it was conveyed that the committee did not intend to discuss potential resolutions during that meeting. During the meeting the committee noted several other instances where the committee came to Agreements with other builders in the neighborhood that did not result in the builder changing their plans to come into compliance with the committee's interpretation of the Ordinance but instead an agreement to not build the same plans again within the Conservation District. Since that meeting I have sent two emails to the committee requesting their suggestions for resolution as it was communicated to us during the meeting that the committee members would do that and get something back to us early this past week. That has not occurred. Instead my email was met with the suggestion that we propose a resolution. As the lines of communication are clearly open we find it interesting that instead of asking us the question about side yard setback, the committee submits a supplement to its appeal. This supplement was the result of the committee's incorrect interpretation and understanding of the plot plan.

We have proposed the resolution to the committee that we will reduce the width of the driveway entry to 10 feet. We have not received any further communication from the committee as to its propositions for resolution. We believe that based upon the committee's actions, which have not been consistent with statements made during our meeting, it has no interest in attempting resolution outside the Board hearing. While we are still open to hearing propositions for resolution from the committee so as to avoid the need for the Board hearing, at this point we have no option but to proceed with construction in line with the permit issued by the City of Dallas. Brittany Bailey