New Page 1

1. Ms Rowdon's assertion that 118 King Alfred Way (Lot 6) is a corner lot. This is an incorrect assumption. Princess Gillian Court does not abut Lot 6 but, rather, bisects George and Sue Wilson's Lot #7. (see enclosed plat of Lot #6) It is unfortunate the developer's surveyor was so far off the mark but Mr. Wilson accepted the erroneous road location rather than choose a different lot and, as we understand, was to be compensated by the developer with footage at the other end of his lot. As a result, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson occupy a "corner" lot in a double sense as can be clearly seen from the survey stakes separating our two lots. We did not cut the roads nor define the easements -- the developer did. Mr. Wilson could have insisted that the road be correctly located and cut which would have made both lots 6 and 7 corner lots but he did not do so with all the resultant consequences.

2. Front of House at 118 King Alfred Way(Lot 6) The house was constructed in approximately 1896 and was built with the front porch and door facing West (or facing what are now known as Lots 9 & 10. We see no reason to try and change the way the house was planned and built and in fact plan to enlarge the front porch even more to take advantage of the spectacular view to the west. Nor could we change the layout of our house to reflect the King Alfred Way side as front. Both our foyer and entry staircase also face west as does the front door. To enter from King Alfred Way would make our kitchen the entryway to the house for guests which was unacceptable to the previous owners as it is for us. This is a non-issue especially in view of the facts contained in paragraph 1 and in view of the fact that we purchased the house without restrictions on what would be classified as the front, back or sides. In this regard we also note that Mr. Edenfield (lot #9) chose to designate the east side of his lot as his "front" without any other specified criteria cited. We believe every lot owner in King's Grant should have the same right to so designate their "front" house side and concurrent lot side.

3. Deed containing easement for Lot 9 (Sam Edenfield)(Attached in Hardcover version of this Letter). The language contained in Mr. Edenfield's Deed states: "...together with a 25 foot easement over Lot 6 to Princess Gillian Court as shown on plat attached hereto". This is an easement for ingress and egress only granted by the developer to Lot 9 in order to allow Mr. Edenfield a way to access his lot. It was not conveyed to other Association members nor upon any other party.

4. Deed for Lot 10 (former Saunders, then Yates, now Currence)(Attached in Hardcover version of this Letter) As you can see the deed for Lot 10 has no easement language. The reason is simple. The developer saw no need for an easement across Lot 6. The Certified Survey for Lot 6 (attached in Hardcover version of this Letter) clearly identifies the cul de sac at the end of Princess Gillian Court. The cul de sac affords access to both Lots 10 and 11. The fact that Mr. Saunders chose to build his driveway in the wrong place is unfortunate since it should be fronting on the 50 foot diameter cul de sac. This problem should have been obvious to every subsequent property owner of Lot 10 since the record is clear to see and they were on notice. There is no right of an easement for ingress or egress over Lot 6 for Lot 10 or any other lot owner as is the case for Lot 9. The only legal right to burden our property as to the 25 foot ingress egress easement belongs to the Edenfield's and to their guests and invitees visiting their house via the easement as specified in his deed. This easement is not a road nor a continuation of Princess Gillian Court which ends at the cul de sac. Only a designated road as shown on the plat for King's Grant allows for legal ingress and egress by all members under the covenants such as is the case for King Alfred Way or Princess Gillian Court. This legal situation raises a number of issues. Primary among these is the right to use the ingress and egress easement, concurrent liability concerns and fencing issues to name a few.

5. Princess Gillian Court/Cul de Sac (Shown on Attached Certified Survey of Lot 6). We are fully prepared to give the 50 foot setback on our lot from our corner rod for a cul de sac to be developed with the understanding that the entire 100 foot diameter will be cleared and cut. This will require that the 50 foot setback for the cul de sac will also be taken from lots 7, 10 and 11. This issue is particularly important since the owners of Lot 10 have approached the Board with concerns over our legitimate rights to mark our property line (even to questioning the positioning of our survey stakes along our property line) and to fence our property adjacent to their lot. We recognize that the cul de sac dimensions impact most heavily on Lot 10 virtually taking most if not all of their front yard but this is an issue for them not us. We also note that this will solve Lot 10's problem as to legal access to their property since they can access directly from the cul de sac as was the clear intent of the plat. This requirement to standardize the setbacks and easements for all property owners is vital if the entire system of easement and access for bridle/jogging trails is to be protected and developed as recently affirmed by the July 21st vote. For example, if the cul de sac issue together with the attendant easement issues is not adequately addressed then what are we to make of the 20-25 foot setbacks also called for on our plat and those of other lot owners to afford use of the bridal/jogging trails? We require that the Board step up to the plate to resolve these issues in an equitable and even handed manner. To do otherwise would be to make a shambles of setback requirements and easement language throughout Kings Grant and would allow inconsistent takings of certain owners property rights. It is our opinion that a strong and forceful but equitable enforcement policy throughout the Association will do more to facilitate better neighborly relations than has been the case with the haphazard and unequal observance of easements and setbacks. We need an answer to this particular issue as soon as possible as regards set backs in order that we may proceed with our plans for fencing.

Lot 9: Fence across front yard line is fine as we agree with Mr. Edenfield's determination that no setback is required to be given for bridle/jogging trails on the owner's designated front line. However, we would note that Mr. Edenfield did not set his fence back 20' on each side line of his property for riders and joggers as called for in the covenants. Also, it does not appear that Mr. Edenfield set his fence back as an outside lot the required 40' along Cropp Road (rear of his property). We are asking for that to be addressed also.

Lot 10: Pond is in the middle of the easement. We researched this and found that a "special" easement was granted giving 20' access around the entire pond since it was constructed on the easement line between lots 10 and 11. This To comply with the easement language the existing fence must be relocated 20' inside of Lot 10's pond edge so riders and joggers may pass around the pond and back to the property lines. The fence must also be moved in 20' from each side before and after the lake and 40' from the back line.

8. Speed Bumps or Speed Islands. We have checked with the Stafford County Sheriff's Office were told no officer is allowed to give a speeding ticket to anyone unless it is given on a state/county-maintained road. They can issue a ticket on private roads but only as to operation of a motor vehicle in a reckless or wanton manner providing they observe the activity personally. Moreover, off-duty officers are not allowed to wear their uniforms or use their official cars for private employment situations. Therefore, the notion that we can control speeders by ticketing them or patrolling the area with off-duty officers is moot. The only way we can control speeding (of all kinds and at all hours) is with speed controls such as bumps or center islands. We prefer the island approach since they are much less uncomfortable and more visually friendly, and could be accommodated within the easement space. As we look at the plat of Kings Grant, all major roadways have 50' easements. This would give us room to add the islands, slow down traffic, increase safety, reduce liability and visually improve the appearance of Kings Grant for all homeowners and their guests. Please do not wait until a child is killed by speeders to implement this much needed addition. We watch in horror day in and day out as cars speed by our house into blind spots and curves both coming and going while children are riding their bikes and pedestrians are walking their dogs. This will become a greater problem as equestrians move about the complex. Moreover, on King Alfred Way alone there are two major "deer" crossings which need to be marked to preclude an accident. They are just beyond the entrance of Kings Grant on King Alfred Way and mid-way across Lot 6 on King Alfred Way. There may be more, but these two are obvious to us and highlight the speeding issue even more..

9. Road Abuse by Heavy Trucks. We mentioned this in our last letter to you. Whereas businesses operated from a household phone or home office are of no threat to the "residential" integrity of Kings Grant:, the impact of operating an 18-wheeler (often fully loaded) daily is unacceptable. Kings Grant is a RESIDENTIAL community -- not a trucking terminal. We understand the Board's dilemma in not wishing to prohibit individuals from working out of their home simply to stop the destruction of our roadways. However, gross weight limits could be imposed and posted at our entrances that would address the problem. Even an empty tractor pigtailing it without a trailer is still much heavier than the largest SUV on the road. We are again strongly suggesting that this issue be addressed as soon as possible to prevent ongoing road damage and to maintain the residential integrity of our community.

10. Unclean Hands Syndrome. It seems to us that the people making the most noise, addressing the Board in special meetings etc., are often the worst violators. There should be a ruling by the Board that the Board will not address verbally or in written form a concern expressed by any homeowner/lot owner "with unclean hands". That is to say, if a homeowner is not abiding by the Covenants of Kings Grant or has known encroachments on the bridle/jogging trails, isn't current with their dues, etc., then that member must correct these discrepancies before he/she will be heard. This is a time honored doctrine in our legal system and prevents situations in which an action is ordered against an individual as a result of a complaint lodged by another guilty of the same or worse offense. And, what an appropriate way to encourage homeowner compliance with the covenants and to ensure the timely paying of dues.

In closing, we wish to emphasize that we only seek fair, equitable treatment and enforcement for all Kings Grant Homeowners. The same rules, covenants and restrictions must apply to everyone. Therefore, we ask the Board to send an open letter to every lot owner demanding that any and all encroachments and known covenant violations be corrected on their lot within 30-60 days time. Owners should be advised that after this grace period fines would be levied on all non-conforming lot owners with accumulating penalties each month that the violation(s) remain uncorrected. All such moneys collected should be directed toward road improvements to include the traffic islands or speed bumps to address the speeding issue. Individuals failing to pay fines as required should be subject to suit and/or liens being filed against their property with every effort made to collect any legal fees the Association might incur in the collection effort. Aquia Harbor pursues an aggressive policy as to compliance issues and operates all the better for it to include collection of speeding fines. This approach will start the new Board out "right" and begin the process of correcting the haphazard mishmash that King's Grant has become. We are all but a laughingstock amongst realtors and at the Stafford County Courthouse. When one homeowner encroaches on easements or another's property, possesses chickens, or runs a trucking terminal at their residence to name a few cases then the Association becomes a "tangled web" of inequality and discrimination with enforcement on some and not all. To set the KGOA up for legal battles by not having a record of equitable enforcement will surely result in failure and financial distress. The Board can make it right -- now, not later. Send letters to violators now -- not later. We have done our part by contracting a certified survey at our own expense of our property not once but twice since our "neighbors" saw fit to remove our survey stakes. Everyone needs to mark their boundaries accurately and submit to the Board's review as appropriate to ensure full compliance as soon as possible but prior to January 1, 2002. If property owners fail to do so they should be put on notice that the Board will proceed based on the latest recorded plat or survey as it relates to the property.

I have forwarded your email to the Kings Grant Board of Directors. Please be aware that although your email showed an attachment, there was nothing there when I opened it. I am assuming that all of the copies you refer to as being enclosed or attached are actually being sent along with a hardcopy of your email. Please advise us of the address to which you are sending this information.

I have also send the current Board of Directors a copy of the email that you sent in May to the previous Board.

Following up on my previous email, please advise me as soon as possible which of your addresses you wish to have designated as your official address for

The mail was sent to the Post Office box in Hartwood (I think it was box 78 --not in my office right now). The mailclerk put it right into your box

as we were standing there so we didn't need to send it to registered. In this package you will find all of the documents from the Stafford County Courthouse referred to in our letter.

If the Board has comments or questions, please address them to the following address: