Table A

 

The notes in Italics provide analysis of information compiled by George B. McCallum.  

 

Parcel

Parcel of Record

Acreage

Development Rights Identified by GBM

Development rights as determined by County

(1)

223/528

1171.86 –less 490 retained 681.86

 

 

           (a)

173/27

plat 61/62

247

residue >10

5

Yes

The creation of the 490-acre parcel resulted in a single residue.

          (b)

173/27

116

 

 

(i)

99/243

plat 96/317

35

5

Yes

The creation of the 490-acre parcel did not affect this parcel.

(ii)

99/243

plat 96/317

81

(plat shows 90 before 9 off)

5

Yes

The creation of the 490-acre parcel did not affect this parcel. Plat at D.B. 96, p. 317 shows Lot 1 with 90 acres. GBM notes that Gillispie plat identifies portion of the 90-acre tract that is south of a farm road to be “out” and he references D.B. 101, p. 299. The tax map indicates that the 9 acres has been divided among Tax Map 105, Parcels 16, 16A& 16B. Therefore, the 81 acre parcel has 5 development rights and the 9 acres are not a subject of this analysis.   

           (c)

173/27

plat 127/229

72

residue > 10

5

 

Yes

The creation of the 490-acre parcel resulted in a single residue.

           (d)

173/27

plat 129/188

27.21

5

Yes

The creation of the 490-acre parcel did not affect this parcel.

           (e)

173/27

metes & bounds 122/132

138.7

residue >10

residue >  4

 

5

2

No

 5 DRs total

As a result of the the creation of the 490-acre parcel the residue of Sub-parcel (e) was a single legal parcel that is physically divided into two portions. The two portions share a total of five development rights. D.B./p. 122/132 states that the 2.5 acres that was part of Lot 3 on Gillispie plat is included in Parcel 1, Sub-parcel (e)

 

           (f)

173/27

metes & bounds

131/232

138.7

residue > 10

remnant

 

5

Yes

As a result of the creation of the 490-acre parcel the residue of Sub-parcel ( f) was a single legal parcel that is physically divided into two portions. Mr. McCallum describes the southern portion as a remnant with no DRs. The two portions share a total of five development rights.

           (g)

173/27

plat of (c) & (g) combined at 122/171

232 ¼

residue > 10

residue > 8

 

5

4

No

5 DRs total

As a result of the creation of the 490-acre parcel the residue of Sub-parcel (g) was a single legal parcel that is physically divided into two portions. The two portions share a total of five development rights.

                     (h)

173/27

plat 128/350

200

residue > 10

residue > 10

 

5

5

No

5 DRs total

As a result of the creation of the 490-acre parcel the residue of Sub-parcel (h) was a single legal parcel that is physically divided into two portions. The two portions share a total of five development rights.

(2)

225/305

40

 

 

            (a)     

205/424

plat 96/317

23.16

5

Yes

Shown on plat as Lot 1

            (b)    

205/424

plat 96/317

17.5

5

Yes

Shown on plat as Lot 3

(3)

227/121

190 ¾

 

 

            (a)

202/424

plat 185/339

159.5

5

Yes

Plat at 185/339 shows 162 – 2.5 = 159.5 acres. D.B./p. 122/132 states that the 2.5 acres that was part of Lot 3 on Gillispie plat is included in Parcel, 1 Sub-parcel (e).

            (b)

199/510

plat 164/190

31 ¼

 

 

(i)

146/24

plat 69/327

11 ¾

5

Yes

The 11.75-acre parcel is a portion of the 31.25-acre parcel described above.

(ii)

146/24

plat 69/327

19 ½

5

Yes

The 19.5-acre parcel is a portion of the 31.25-acre parcel described above.

 

(4)

227/473

plat 126/405

168

5

Yes

(5)

228/448

plat 228/449

81.47

 

 

DB/p 228/449shows 17.5-acre parcel and a 64-acre parcel for a total of 80.47 acres. There is a hint of a third parcel between these two shown in broken line.

           (a)

118/303

plat 118/305

17 ¼ later TBD as 17 ½

5

Yes

           (b)

146/146

plat 157/100

64 (plat incorrectly shows 50)

5

Yes

DB/p 146/146 states parcel contains about 64 acres. DB/p 157/100 plat shows the parcel contains 50 acres. We determine that 228/448 establishes these as two parcels- 17.5 & 64. This agrees with GBM’s opinion.

(6)

228/450

plat 124/416

148.146

5

yes

D.B. 673, p. 462 shows the off conveyance of 20.854 acres from Parcel 6 on a plat dated April 12, 1979. The plat references DB/p 381/236 and 362/292 for the plat. This 20.854-acre tract has been further subdivided. The resulting parcels are designated on Tax Map 116 as Parcels 2B, 10, 10B,11, 12 &13. The residue is calculated to contain 148.146 acres.

(7)

228/486

53.62

 

            (a)

71/110

no plat

7

3

Yes

            (b)

117/455

plat 117/456

46.62

5

Yes

Plat in D.B. 117, p. 456 shows the 53.62-acre parcel. The Gillispie plat notes that Parcel 7 contains 53.62 acres. Therefore the 7-acre parcel is contained within the bounds of the 53.62-acre tract. However, the location of the 7-acre portion must be determined. Deed states that 7 acres have already been sold off and conveyed by D.B. 71, p. 110.

(8)

228/489

no plat

87.65

5

Yes

Parcels (8), (16), (23), (25), (30) and the Martia Edwards Tract are platted together on the 1960 Gillispie plat. The location must be determined.

(9)

228/494

166

 

DB/p 124/418 shows Lot 3 containing 166 acres on a plat

            (a)

159/42

plat 159/43

60

5

Yes

            (b)

172/8

plat 124/418

106

5

Yes

The eastern part of Parcel (9) is not a separate parcel according to GBM. It was Gillispie’s way to resolve the gap between Lot 3 and a 202.625-acre parcel shown on his plat dated 5/57 and 2/58 .The gap is between T.M. 104-8 and T.M.116-1.  This gap is determined to not be a separate parcel.

 

(10)

230/125

369 ¾ 

 

 

            (a)

230/125

plat 123/433

349 ¾

5

Yes

 

            (b)

230/125

metes & bounds 145/303

20

5

Yes

(11)

230/314

no plat

68

5

Yes

(12)

231/169

no plat (metes & bounds for 200 ac. parent 32/208)

132 ½

5

Yes

GBM has supplied Deed Book 192, page 91 and Deed Book 191, page 334 which  complete the chain in the file.

(13)

231/170

no plat

99 ¾

5

Yes

(14)

231/434

522.83

 

            (a)

231/434

plat 129/354

515

5

Yes

            (b)

231/434

plat 166/411

7.83

3

Yes

(15)

235/94

plat 172/580

124.56

5

Yes

(16)

239/509

no plat

292

5

Yes

Parcels (8), (16), (23), (25), (30) and the Martia Edwards Tract are platted together on the 1960 Gillispie plat. The location must be determined.

(17)

239/568

59.88

 

             (a)

239/568

metes & bounds 61/75

46

5

Yes

             (b)

239/568

plat 228/467

13.88

5

Yes

(18)

240/151

no plat

(plat of 351 ac. parent 79/229)

207.36 (however 1960 plat shows 260 acres)

5

Yes

As GBM notes, the parcel is calculated to contain 207.36 acres. [351-(10.1 + 4.47 + 121.24 + 7.83) = 207.36.] The Gillispie plat states Parcel (18) contains 260 acres. The discrepancy is not reconciled. This does not have an effect on the number of development rights.

           

 

(19)

242/136

w/metes & bounds

125

5

Yes

(20)

244/186

no plat

15

5

Yes

(21)

245/39

plat 77/100

12

5

Yes

(22)

247/42

w/metes & bounds

15

5

Yes

(23)

247/44

plat 125/210

18

5

Yes

 The referenced plat indicates its location.

(24)

252/212

51 ½

 

            (a)

142/68

no plat

41 ½

5

Yes

            (b)

181/547

metes & bounds

64/120

10

5

Yes

Perimeter boundary of 51.5-acre parcel is clear. DB/p 252/212refers to 51.5 acres in two pieces- 41.5 and 10. DB/p 74/489 shows the location of a 31.5-acre portion identified on the Gillispie plat. The location of 41.5-acre parcel, the 31.5-acre parcel and the 10-acre parcel is not verified. A survey is needed to locate them. However, based on DB/p252/212 we determine it is 2 parcels in agreement with GBM.

(25)

253/525

25

 

 

            (a)

253/525

no plat

10

5

Yes

            (b)

253/525

no plat

15

5

Yes

Parcels (8), (16), (23), (25), (30) and the Martia Edwards Tract are platted together on the 1960 Gillispie plat. The location of the two parcels must be determined. The 10 acres came from the lands of James Monroe, part of 3500 acres conveyed on 3/22/1827.

(26)

263/161

plat 77/102

12 1/8 

5

Yes

(27)

288/186

plat 91/6

15 ¾

5

Yes

(28)

289/568

no plat

5-8 est.

(appears > 6)

3

Yes

The acreage must be verified to determine the actual number of DRs.

(29)

290/459

plat 77/148

15 ¼

5

Yes

(30)

309/446

no plat

12

5

Yes

Parcels (8), (16), (23), (25), (30) and the Martia Edwards Tract are platted together on the 1960 Gillispie plat. The location must be determined.

 

(31)

324/37

89

 

            (a)

324/37

no plat

20

5

Yes

            (b)

324/37

no plat

69

5

Yes

(32)

324/288

metes & bounds 39/488

10

5

Yes

 

Martia Edwards Tract

363/378

no plat

20-25

5

Yes

DB/p 110/300 states the parcel consists of 20 or 25 acres. The Gillispie plat indicates the general area with words- not lines. The location must be determined.

“50.5 acres” from Naylor – 5/30/1979

673/466

 

50.5

 

 

             (a)

plat 58/506

minus plat 670/433

44.5

5

Yes

             (b)

plat 58/506

6 ¾

3

Yes

See GBM’s notes. There may be a question of ownership but no question that there are 2 parcels containing 44.5 and 6.3/4 acres respectively.

Total development rights

278

267

Total parcels

58

55

Total acres

4,039.331 to 4,047.331

 

 

Go to next attachment

Return to letter