Description: The approach and process to create the regional, standardized parcel data for the project involved the following steps. First convert the collected parcel data from its current format into the required Esri Geodatabase format, and the CT Cadastral Standard file Geodatabase template. All pre-existing parcel polygon attributes and parcel line attributes (including any feature level metadata) that were both part of the standard and also those that are not part of the standard attributes, were preserved as appended fields in the attribute tables. Next the GIS Link currently employed by the town was determined and if there was not an existing link, then AppGeo created one. If necessary, an Intersection table was created to establish the “many-to-one” relationship of condos and these special types of parcels. Analyze the data and report the mismatches for parcels with no CAMA as well as CAMA with no parcels. Analyze the parcels data for duplicate IDs. Document and submit to the towns, the analyses results and a map depicting the parcels that do not have a matching CAMA record, and work with the town to resolve the issues found. Goal was to accurately resolve as many of the mismatches as possible in order to meet at least the minimum required match rate of 90% per the CT Cadastral Standard. Incorporate necessary changes to resolve mismatches into the GIS data. In some cases this involved completely redrawing new parcel boundaries from recorded plans that were located during the resolution step, for changes such as lot splits or merges that will resolve a mismatch. The Coordinate Geometry (COGO) method was employed for creating or updating parcels lines when a recorded plan with the bearings or angles and distances are provided.The next step in the process was to assess the overall quality of the linework, flag areas of major concern with Errata Points, and attempt to acquire additional plans or other input from the town to address these areas. AppGeo adjusted the parcel linework using the more accurate boundaries depicted on plans that were made available. The surrounding (less accurate) parcels were then adjusted to the new (more accurate) parcels. The remaining parcels were visually inspected for alignment to the orthophotos. If determined necessary, the right of way lines and interior lot lines for each block of parcels were adjusted to visually match base map features on a block by block basis. If a town had, and provided to AppGeo, a dimension text layer, then the parcel lines were adjusted while maintaining parcel line lengths as defined by the dimension text per the best fit. If any of the original parcels had been created or maintained using Coordinate Geometry (COGO) and are identified as such in the existing parcel attributes, those parcels’ boundaries were held firmly as is and were not modified during the alignment process. Feature level metadata for all parcels edited during this process were updated in the parcel layers’ attributes according to the CT Cadastral Standard attribution guidelines. Internal QA/QC was done by AppGeo and then the data were reviewed by CRCOG.
Copyright Text: These data were processed by Applied Geographics, Inc. as part of a regional performance incentive grant to the CRCOG (Capitol Region Council of Governments). These metadata were created as part of this project by AppGeo.
Description: In 1999 development of Berlins' parcels commenced by the James Sewell company. In 2007, New England Geosystems took over as the GIS consultant for Berlin, CT. Parcel edits were created using coordinated geometry when possible, starting in 2007. Edits have been recorded since this date. Also in 2007, a project to draft and link all condo footprints was conducted and completed. These footprints are still maintained and updated as needed. New England Geosystems also manages and maintains a parcel point and arc layer, which is formatted in the same schema. Last updated: Oct. 2014
Copyright Text: This data is for use by the Town of Berlin and its authorized agents. Disclaimer: This map is for informational purposes only. All information is subject to verification by any user. The Town of Berlin and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the information contained herein.
Description: The approach and process to create the regional, standardized parcel data for the project involved the following steps. First convert the collected parcel data from its current format into the required Esri Geodatabase format, and the CT Cadastral Standard file Geodatabase template. All pre-existing parcel polygon attributes and parcel line attributes (including any feature level metadata) that were both part of the standard and also those that are not part of the standard attributes, were preserved as appended fields in the attribute tables. Next the GIS Link currently employed by the town was determined and if there was not an existing link, then AppGeo created one. If necessary, an Intersection table was created to establish the “many-to-one” relationship of condos and these special types of parcels. Analyze the data and report the mismatches for parcels with no CAMA as well as CAMA with no parcels. Analyze the parcels data for duplicate IDs. Document and submit to the towns, the analyses results and a map depicting the parcels that do not have a matching CAMA record, and work with the town to resolve the issues found. Goal was to accurately resolve as many of the mismatches as possible in order to meet at least the minimum required match rate of 90% per the CT Cadastral Standard. Incorporate necessary changes to resolve mismatches into the GIS data. In some cases this involved completely redrawing new parcel boundaries from recorded plans that were located during the resolution step, for changes such as lot splits or merges that will resolve a mismatch. The Coordinate Geometry (COGO) method was employed for creating or updating parcels lines when a recorded plan with the bearings or angles and distances are provided.The next step in the process was to assess the overall quality of the linework, flag areas of major concern with Errata Points, and attempt to acquire additional plans or other input from the town to address these areas. AppGeo adjusted the parcel linework using the more accurate boundaries depicted on plans that were made available. The surrounding (less accurate) parcels were then adjusted to the new (more accurate) parcels. The remaining parcels were visually inspected for alignment to the orthophotos. If determined necessary, the right of way lines and interior lot lines for each block of parcels were adjusted to visually match base map features on a block by block basis. If a town had, and provided to AppGeo, a dimension text layer, then the parcel lines were adjusted while maintaining parcel line lengths as defined by the dimension text per the best fit. If any of the original parcels had been created or maintained using Coordinate Geometry (COGO) and are identified as such in the existing parcel attributes, those parcels’ boundaries were held firmly as is and were not modified during the alignment process. Feature level metadata for all parcels edited during this process were updated in the parcel layers’ attributes according to the CT Cadastral Standard attribution guidelines. Internal QA/QC was done by AppGeo and then the data were reviewed by CRCOG.
Copyright Text: These data were processed by Applied Geographics, Inc. as part of a regional performance incentive grant to the CRCOG (Capitol Region Council of Governments). These metadata were created as part of this project by AppGeo.
Description: The approach and process to create the regional, standardized parcel data for the project involved the following steps. First convert the collected parcel data from its current format into the required Esri Geodatabase format, and the CT Cadastral Standard file Geodatabase template. All pre-existing parcel polygon attributes and parcel line attributes (including any feature level metadata) that were both part of the standard and also those that are not part of the standard attributes, were preserved as appended fields in the attribute tables. Next the GIS Link currently employed by the town was determined and if there was not an existing link, then AppGeo created one. If necessary, an Intersection table was created to establish the “many-to-one” relationship of condos and these special types of parcels. Analyze the data and report the mismatches for parcels with no CAMA as well as CAMA with no parcels. Analyze the parcels data for duplicate IDs. Document and submit to the towns, the analyses results and a map depicting the parcels that do not have a matching CAMA record, and work with the town to resolve the issues found. Goal was to accurately resolve as many of the mismatches as possible in order to meet at least the minimum required match rate of 90% per the CT Cadastral Standard. Incorporate necessary changes to resolve mismatches into the GIS data. In some cases this involved completely redrawing new parcel boundaries from recorded plans that were located during the resolution step, for changes such as lot splits or merges that will resolve a mismatch. The Coordinate Geometry (COGO) method was employed for creating or updating parcels lines when a recorded plan with the bearings or angles and distances are provided.The next step in the process was to assess the overall quality of the linework, flag areas of major concern with Errata Points, and attempt to acquire additional plans or other input from the town to address these areas. AppGeo adjusted the parcel linework using the more accurate boundaries depicted on plans that were made available. The surrounding (less accurate) parcels were then adjusted to the new (more accurate) parcels. The remaining parcels were visually inspected for alignment to the orthophotos. If determined necessary, the right of way lines and interior lot lines for each block of parcels were adjusted to visually match base map features on a block by block basis. If a town had, and provided to AppGeo, a dimension text layer, then the parcel lines were adjusted while maintaining parcel line lengths as defined by the dimension text per the best fit. If any of the original parcels had been created or maintained using Coordinate Geometry (COGO) and are identified as such in the existing parcel attributes, those parcels’ boundaries were held firmly as is and were not modified during the alignment process. Feature level metadata for all parcels edited during this process were updated in the parcel layers’ attributes according to the CT Cadastral Standard attribution guidelines. Internal QA/QC was done by AppGeo and then the data were reviewed by CRCOG.
Copyright Text: These data were processed by Applied Geographics, Inc. as part of a regional performance incentive grant to the CRCOG (Capitol Region Council of Governments). These metadata were created as part of this project by AppGeo.
Description: This feature class contains parcel boundary polygon features. The Town's Engineering Department started the creation of the parcel data in 1987 in AutoCAD using Cordinate Geometry (COGO) by compiling data from various sources. About 80% of the parcel data was created by COGO from sources such as surveys, subdivision plans, State Right of Way plans, and deed records research. The remainder of the data was filled in by digitizing scanned and georeferenced tax maps. The data was originally developed in the NAD 27 datum and was later converted to NAD 83 after analyzing the control between the two datums and making the appropriate shift to the data. The parcel data was completed in 1989. Starting back in 1962 the Town has required Coordinates in any submitted plans to ensure that data updates would be as accurate as possible with respect to geodetic control.
Description: The approach and process to create the regional, standardized parcel data for the project involved the following steps. First convert the collected parcel data from its current format into the required Esri Geodatabase format, and the CT Cadastral Standard file Geodatabase template. All pre-existing parcel polygon attributes and parcel line attributes (including any feature level metadata) that were both part of the standard and also those that are not part of the standard attributes, were preserved as appended fields in the attribute tables. Next the GIS Link currently employed by the town was determined and if there was not an existing link, then AppGeo created one. If necessary, an Intersection table was created to establish the “many-to-one” relationship of condos and these special types of parcels. Analyze the data and report the mismatches for parcels with no CAMA as well as CAMA with no parcels. Analyze the parcels data for duplicate IDs. Document and submit to the towns, the analyses results and a map depicting the parcels that do not have a matching CAMA record, and work with the town to resolve the issues found. Goal was to accurately resolve as many of the mismatches as possible in order to meet at least the minimum required match rate of 90% per the CT Cadastral Standard. Incorporate necessary changes to resolve mismatches into the GIS data. In some cases this involved completely redrawing new parcel boundaries from recorded plans that were located during the resolution step, for changes such as lot splits or merges that will resolve a mismatch. The Coordinate Geometry (COGO) method was employed for creating or updating parcels lines when a recorded plan with the bearings or angles and distances are provided.The next step in the process was to assess the overall quality of the linework, flag areas of major concern with Errata Points, and attempt to acquire additional plans or other input from the town to address these areas. AppGeo adjusted the parcel linework using the more accurate boundaries depicted on plans that were made available. The surrounding (less accurate) parcels were then adjusted to the new (more accurate) parcels. The remaining parcels were visually inspected for alignment to the orthophotos. If determined necessary, the right of way lines and interior lot lines for each block of parcels were adjusted to visually match base map features on a block by block basis. If a town had, and provided to AppGeo, a dimension text layer, then the parcel lines were adjusted while maintaining parcel line lengths as defined by the dimension text per the best fit. If any of the original parcels had been created or maintained using Coordinate Geometry (COGO) and are identified as such in the existing parcel attributes, those parcels’ boundaries were held firmly as is and were not modified during the alignment process. Feature level metadata for all parcels edited during this process were updated in the parcel layers’ attributes according to the CT Cadastral Standard attribution guidelines. Internal QA/QC was done by AppGeo and then the data were reviewed by CRCOG.
Copyright Text: These data were processed by Applied Geographics, Inc. as part of a regional performance incentive grant to the CRCOG (Capitol Region Council of Governments). These metadata were created as part of this project by AppGeo.
Description: This Feature Class was created in 2014 as part of a Connecticut Office of Policy and Management/The original parcel layer was digitized from tax maps originally created by General Mapping , Inc. of Youngwood, PA in 1970, last revised in 1999. These maps were drawn over unrectified aerial photos, resulting in significant distortion. More current orthophotos, specifically those from the 2009 CCROG flight and the 2012 State flight were used to refine the property lines using obvious indications of property lines such as fences and hedgerows. In addition, over 100 parcels were drawn by Coordinate Geography (COGO) using as-built maps. These points are used for assigning attributes to parcel polygons.Condominiums are drawn as individual polygons with their own points.updated April 2018
Copyright Text: Town of Plainville Planning Department, New England Geosystems, CT DEEP, FEMA
Description: This feature class is the product of a join between Land Use feature class and Parcel feature class. The GIS_Land_Use field has the most up-to-date Land Use data. This feature class was updated on December 2015.
Description: In 1999 development of Southington's parcel commenced by the James Sewell company. In 2003 The Brodie Group took over as the GIS consusltant for Southington, CT. Parcel edits were conducted using coordinate geomerty when possible but not recorded. In 2005 a project to delienate and draft the condo footprints was conducted and completed. Since the parcel file has condo footprints incorperated into the main features, MBL2 will be the link field between CAMA and GIS. After 2005, New England GeoSystems beacame the main GIS consultant overseing all GIS projects and the maintenace of the parcels. In 2008 metadata on the methods of updates was beign recoreded and have been introdeuced into the parcel fields as part of CT cadastral standards. Parcel points and ARCs exist and have the same schema as these parcels. Last updated: April 2015
Copyright Text: Brodie, Group, Sewall, New England GeoSystems, Town of Southington, CT
Description: The approach and process to create the regional, standardized parcel data for the project involved the following steps. First convert the collected parcel data from its current format into the required Esri Geodatabase format, and the CT Cadastral Standard file Geodatabase template. All pre-existing parcel polygon attributes and parcel line attributes (including any feature level metadata) that were both part of the standard and also those that are not part of the standard attributes, were preserved as appended fields in the attribute tables. Next the GIS Link currently employed by the town was determined and if there was not an existing link, then AppGeo created one. If necessary, an Intersection table was created to establish the “many-to-one” relationship of condos and these special types of parcels. Analyze the data and report the mismatches for parcels with no CAMA as well as CAMA with no parcels. Analyze the parcels data for duplicate IDs. Document and submit to the towns, the analyses results and a map depicting the parcels that do not have a matching CAMA record, and work with the town to resolve the issues found. Goal was to accurately resolve as many of the mismatches as possible in order to meet at least the minimum required match rate of 90% per the CT Cadastral Standard. Incorporate necessary changes to resolve mismatches into the GIS data. In some cases this involved completely redrawing new parcel boundaries from recorded plans that were located during the resolution step, for changes such as lot splits or merges that will resolve a mismatch. The Coordinate Geometry (COGO) method was employed for creating or updating parcels lines when a recorded plan with the bearings or angles and distances are provided.The next step in the process was to assess the overall quality of the linework, flag areas of major concern with Errata Points, and attempt to acquire additional plans or other input from the town to address these areas. AppGeo adjusted the parcel linework using the more accurate boundaries depicted on plans that were made available. The surrounding (less accurate) parcels were then adjusted to the new (more accurate) parcels. The remaining parcels were visually inspected for alignment to the orthophotos. If determined necessary, the right of way lines and interior lot lines for each block of parcels were adjusted to visually match base map features on a block by block basis. If a town had, and provided to AppGeo, a dimension text layer, then the parcel lines were adjusted while maintaining parcel line lengths as defined by the dimension text per the best fit. If any of the original parcels had been created or maintained using Coordinate Geometry (COGO) and are identified as such in the existing parcel attributes, those parcels’ boundaries were held firmly as is and were not modified during the alignment process. Feature level metadata for all parcels edited during this process were updated in the parcel layers’ attributes according to the CT Cadastral Standard attribution guidelines. Internal QA/QC was done by AppGeo and then the data were reviewed by CRCOG.
Copyright Text: These data were processed by Applied Geographics, Inc. as part of a regional performance incentive grant to the CRCOG (Capitol Region Council of Governments). These metadata were created as part of this project by AppGeo.
Description: The approach and process to create the regional, standardized parcel data for the project involved the following steps. First convert the collected parcel data from its current format into the required Esri Geodatabase format, and the CT Cadastral Standard file Geodatabase template. All pre-existing parcel polygon attributes and parcel line attributes (including any feature level metadata) that were both part of the standard and also those that are not part of the standard attributes, were preserved as appended fields in the attribute tables. Next the GIS Link currently employed by the town was determined and if there was not an existing link, then AppGeo created one. If necessary, an Intersection table was created to establish the “many-to-one” relationship of condos and these special types of parcels. Analyze the data and report the mismatches for parcels with no CAMA as well as CAMA with no parcels. Analyze the parcels data for duplicate IDs. Document and submit to the towns, the analyses results and a map depicting the parcels that do not have a matching CAMA record, and work with the town to resolve the issues found. Goal was to accurately resolve as many of the mismatches as possible in order to meet at least the minimum required match rate of 90% per the CT Cadastral Standard. Incorporate necessary changes to resolve mismatches into the GIS data. In some cases this involved completely redrawing new parcel boundaries from recorded plans that were located during the resolution step, for changes such as lot splits or merges that will resolve a mismatch. The Coordinate Geometry (COGO) method was employed for creating or updating parcels lines when a recorded plan with the bearings or angles and distances are provided.The next step in the process was to assess the overall quality of the linework, flag areas of major concern with Errata Points, and attempt to acquire additional plans or other input from the town to address these areas. AppGeo adjusted the parcel linework using the more accurate boundaries depicted on plans that were made available. The surrounding (less accurate) parcels were then adjusted to the new (more accurate) parcels. The remaining parcels were visually inspected for alignment to the orthophotos. If determined necessary, the right of way lines and interior lot lines for each block of parcels were adjusted to visually match base map features on a block by block basis. If a town had, and provided to AppGeo, a dimension text layer, then the parcel lines were adjusted while maintaining parcel line lengths as defined by the dimension text per the best fit. If any of the original parcels had been created or maintained using Coordinate Geometry (COGO) and are identified as such in the existing parcel attributes, those parcels’ boundaries were held firmly as is and were not modified during the alignment process. Feature level metadata for all parcels edited during this process were updated in the parcel layers’ attributes according to the CT Cadastral Standard attribution guidelines. Internal QA/QC was done by AppGeo and then the data were reviewed by CRCOG.
Copyright Text: These data were processed by Applied Geographics, Inc. as part of a regional performance incentive grant to the CRCOG (Capitol Region Council of Governments). These metadata were created as part of this project by AppGeo.
Description: This Feature Class was created in 2014 as part of a Connecticut Office of Policy and Management grant to the Central Connecticut Regional Planning Association. This Feature Class was created in 2014 as part of a Connecticut Office of Policy and Management grant to the Central Connecticut Regional Planning Association. The original parcel layer was digitized from tax maps of uncertain origin and date. These maps were drawn over unrectified aerial photos, resulting in significant distortion. More current orthophotos, specifically those from the 2009 CCROG flight and the 2012 State flight were used to refine the property lines using obvious indications of property lines such as fences and hedgerows. In addition, over 194 parcels were drawn by Coordinate Geography (COGO) or digitized using as-built maps. These points are used for assigning attributes to parcel polygons. Updated 11/15/2018
Copyright Text: Town of Plymouth Assessor’s Department, New England Geosystems
Description: Bethany's Parcels were adjusted in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program project. The parcels are constructed using an NEGEO cadastral schema which will apply for SCRCOG regional website.Notes: Appended condo footprints into parcel polygon
Copyright Text: Town of Bethany, New England GeoSystems, Fuss and O'neil, OPM, SCRCOG
Description: Branford's Parcels were adjusted in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program project. The parcels are constructed using an NEGEO cadastral schema which will apply for SCRCOG regional website.The Brodie Group of Guilford, CT started the development of the parcels in 2001. The primary method used was the digitization of the paper assessor maps and was created in the NAD 83 State Plane coordinate system. The basemap data used was aerial imagery produced from a fly-over by the Regional Water Authority. Updates are done on an as needed basis by town consultants.
Copyright Text: Brodie Group Atlantic inc, Town of Branford Assessors Office, Town of Branford, New England GeoSystems, OPM, SCRCOG
Description: East Haven's parcels were created in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program project. The parcels are constructed using an NEGEO cadastral schema which will apply for SCRCOG regional website.
Copyright Text: Town of East Haven, New England Geosystems, OPM, SCRCOG
Description: Guilford's Parcels were adjusted in 2015 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program project. The parcels are constructed using an NEGEO cadastral schema which will apply for SCRCOG regional website.The Brodie Group of Guilford, CT started the development of the parcels in 2004. The primary method used was the digitization of the paper assessor maps and was created in the NAD 83 State Plane coordinate system. The basemap data used was aerial imagery produced from a fly-over by the Regional Water Authority. Updates are done on an as needed basis by town consultants.
Copyright Text: Brodie Group Atlantic inc, Town of Guilford Assessors Office, Town of Guilford, New England GeoSystems, SCRCOG, OPM
Description: This Feature Class was adjusted in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program project.
Copyright Text: Town of Hamden, New England GeoSystems, SCRCOG, OPM
Description: This Feature Class was adjusted in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program project.
Copyright Text: Town of Madison, Main Street GIS, New England GeoSystems, SCRCOG
Description: This Feature Class was created in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program project.The Town of Meriden started the development of the parcel layer internally in 2005. It was created in NAD 1983 State Plane Coordinate System. The parcel layer was digitized either from the Town of Meriden’s tax maps or Town Clerk maps. Future appended records were sourced by tax maps, as-builts or Coordinate Geometry with dimensions. This feature class is updated every 3-6 months or as needed.
Copyright Text: City of Meriden MIS Department, City of Meriden Assessors Office, New England Geosystems, OPM, SCRCOG
Description: Milford's Parcels were adjusted in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program project. The parcels are constructed using an NEGEO cadastral schema which will apply for SCRCOG regional website.The Brodie Group of Guilford, CT started the development of the parcels in 1996. The primary method used was the digitization of the paper assessor maps and was created in the NAD 83 State Plane coordinate system. The basemap data used was aerial imagery produced from a fly-over by the Regional Water Authority. Updates are done on an as needed basis by town staff.
Copyright Text: Brodie Group Atlantic inc, City of Milford Assessors Office, City of Milfords GIS coordinator, New England GeoSystems, OPM, SCRCOG
Description: This Feature Class was created in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut Regional Performance Incentive Program Grant to the South Central Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program project. The Brodie Group of Guilford, CT started the development of the parcel layer in 1999. It was created in NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate System. The parcel layer was digitized from the City of New Haven’s georeferenced tax maps. Updates are done on a yearly basis or as needed
Copyright Text: Brodie Group Atlantic inc, City of New Haven, Assessors Office, New England GeoSystems, CT Office of Policy and Management, South Central Regional Council of Governments
Description: This Feature Class was created in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program. The parcel layer development was started in 2003 by the Regional Water Authority and received by the Town of North Branford in 2004. It was created in NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate System. The parcel layer was digitized from the Town of North Branfords tax and assessor maps. North Branford partnered with SCRWA to conduct a fly-over in 1999 producing aerial imagery. These aerials were used as the basemap. Updates are done on a yearly basis.
Copyright Text: North Branford Assessors Office, New England Geosystems, OPM, SCRCOG, Tighe and Bond
Description: This Feature Class was created in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut Regional Performance Incentive Program Grant to the South Central Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program. The development of the parcel layer was started in 2005. The Town of North Haven created CAD files by use of orthophotos generated from SBC’s (AT&T) 2005 fly-over as a base. In February of 2013, the CAD files were given to Applied Geographic’s of Massachusetts where the data was converted into GIS format. Updates were done by use of the Town of North Haven’s Survey and Tax maps. Updates are done on a yearly basis.
Copyright Text: Applied Geographic’s, Town of North Haven Assessors Office, SBC inc (AT&T), New England Geosystems, CT Office of Policy and Management, South Central Regional Council of Governments
Description: This Feature Class was created in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program.The development of the parcel layer was started in 1998-1999 by East Coast Mapping of New Hampshire. East Coast created CAD Drawings for the Town of Wallingford generated through the digitization of Town of Wallingford’s Tax Maps. By use of stereoscopic techniques East Coast created a seamless parcel base from a 2000 aerial flight’s orthophoto’s (1x600ft scale). The CAD files and base were then given to the Wallingford’s Town Engineer who maintained the base. New England Geosystems of Middletown, CT received the CAD files from Wallingford in 2014 and converted the files to GIS format to create the parcel layer.
Copyright Text: East Coast Mapping, Town of Wallingford Assessors Office, Town of Wallingford Engineering Department, New England Geosystems
Description: This Feature Class was adjusted in 2014 as a part of the State of Connecticut’s Policy Intergovernmental Policy Division grant to the Southern Connecticut Regional Council of Governments for the Regional Web-Based GIS program project.The parcel dataset was developed by Sewall Co of Maine in 1999. It was created in NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate System. The parcel layer was digitized from the Town of West Haven's georeferenced tax maps, surveys, deeds and assessors map. Sewall conducted a fly-over in the late 90s producing aerial imagery. Updates as done on an as-needed basis by New England Geosystems.
Copyright Text: Town of West Haven Assessors Office, New England GeoSystems, SCRCOG, OPM
Description: Sewall company of Old Town, Maine started the development of the parcel layer in 1998. It was created in NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate System. The parcel layer was digitized from the Town of Woodbridge’s georeferenced tax maps, surveys, deeds and assessors map. Sewall conducted a fly-over in the late 90s producing aerial imagery. With the use of Stereo Models, planimetric data was created and used in the basemap. Updates are done on a yearly basis.
Copyright Text: Town of Woodbridge Assessor's Office, Town of Woodbridge Engineering Department, Sewall Comapny, NEGEO, OPM, SCRCOG
Description: Source Darien (2009), Tigh and Bond 2008: Ridgefield (2008), New Fairfield (2009)Sewell Sherman (2009)Parcel Data Suspected is from DEEP Parcel Data (2011): Wilton, Bethel, New Fairfield, Brookfield, Bridgewater. Deep Description Below.Connecticut Parcels includes parcel information for selected towns in Connecticut where parcel data was available in digital format at the time the data was acquired from the town or other state agency data sources. Data is neither comlete nor current. Boundaries are not based on survey information. This parcel layer includes information provided by individual municipalities. These parcel data are incomplete and out of date. The accuracy, currency and completeness of the data reflect the content of the data at the time DEEP acquired the data from the individual municipalities. Attribute information is comprised of values such as town name and map lot block number. These data are not updated by CT DEEP and should only be used as a general reference. Critical decisions involving parcel-level information should be based on more recently acquired information from the respective municipalities. These parcels are not to be considered legal boundaries such as boundaries determined from certain classified survey maps or deed descriptions. Parcel boundaries shown in this layer are based on information from municipalities used for property tax purposes. Largely due to differences in horizontal accuracy among various data layers,these parcel boundaries wll not line up exactly with or be properly postioned relative to features shown on other layers available from CT DEEP such as scanned USGS topography quadrangle maps, roads, hydrography, town boundaries, and even orthophotograpy.A 2017 set of parcel data was collected from TeleAtlas for the following towns: Greenwich, Stamford, Norwalk, Westport, New Canaan, Redding, Danbury, Newtown, New MilfordWeston had its own 2017 update from NEGEOModifications to data: Data was edited to standardize it among multiple sources. Building units, water bodies, slivers, and right of way have been removed. Parcels which had no identifer but looked like parcels were provided a code 'UNK' + ID2Data Limitations: The data is not consistent from original sources, and time acquired. There are different formats in the database from the original sources and geometry is not consistent on the borders.
Description: Source Darien (2009), Tigh and Bond 2008: Ridgefield (2008), New Fairfield (2009)Sewell Sherman (2009)Parcel Data Suspected is from DEEP Parcel Data (2011): Wilton, Bethel, New Fairfield, Brookfield, Bridgewater. Deep Description Below.Connecticut Parcels includes parcel information for selected towns in Connecticut where parcel data was available in digital format at the time the data was acquired from the town or other state agency data sources. Data is neither comlete nor current. Boundaries are not based on survey information. This parcel layer includes information provided by individual municipalities. These parcel data are incomplete and out of date. The accuracy, currency and completeness of the data reflect the content of the data at the time DEEP acquired the data from the individual municipalities. Attribute information is comprised of values such as town name and map lot block number. These data are not updated by CT DEEP and should only be used as a general reference. Critical decisions involving parcel-level information should be based on more recently acquired information from the respective municipalities. These parcels are not to be considered legal boundaries such as boundaries determined from certain classified survey maps or deed descriptions. Parcel boundaries shown in this layer are based on information from municipalities used for property tax purposes. Largely due to differences in horizontal accuracy among various data layers,these parcel boundaries wll not line up exactly with or be properly postioned relative to features shown on other layers available from CT DEEP such as scanned USGS topography quadrangle maps, roads, hydrography, town boundaries, and even orthophotograpy.A 2017 set of parcel data was collected from TeleAtlas for the following towns: Greenwich, Stamford, Norwalk, Westport, New Canaan, Redding, Danbury, Newtown, New MilfordWeston had its own 2017 update from NEGEOModifications to data: Data was edited to standardize it among multiple sources. Building units, water bodies, slivers, and right of way have been removed. Parcels which had no identifer but looked like parcels were provided a code 'UNK' + ID2Data Limitations: The data is not consistent from original sources, and time acquired. There are different formats in the database from the original sources and geometry is not consistent on the borders.
Description: Source Darien (2009), Tigh and Bond 2008: Ridgefield (2008), New Fairfield (2009)Sewell Sherman (2009)Parcel Data Suspected is from DEEP Parcel Data (2011): Wilton, Bethel, New Fairfield, Brookfield, Bridgewater. Deep Description Below.Connecticut Parcels includes parcel information for selected towns in Connecticut where parcel data was available in digital format at the time the data was acquired from the town or other state agency data sources. Data is neither comlete nor current. Boundaries are not based on survey information. This parcel layer includes information provided by individual municipalities. These parcel data are incomplete and out of date. The accuracy, currency and completeness of the data reflect the content of the data at the time DEEP acquired the data from the individual municipalities. Attribute information is comprised of values such as town name and map lot block number. These data are not updated by CT DEEP and should only be used as a general reference. Critical decisions involving parcel-level information should be based on more recently acquired information from the respective municipalities. These parcels are not to be considered legal boundaries such as boundaries determined from certain classified survey maps or deed descriptions. Parcel boundaries shown in this layer are based on information from municipalities used for property tax purposes. Largely due to differences in horizontal accuracy among various data layers,these parcel boundaries wll not line up exactly with or be properly postioned relative to features shown on other layers available from CT DEEP such as scanned USGS topography quadrangle maps, roads, hydrography, town boundaries, and even orthophotograpy.A 2017 set of parcel data was collected from TeleAtlas for the following towns: Greenwich, Stamford, Norwalk, Westport, New Canaan, Redding, Danbury, Newtown, New MilfordWeston had its own 2017 update from NEGEOModifications to data: Data was edited to standardize it among multiple sources. Building units, water bodies, slivers, and right of way have been removed. Parcels which had no identifer but looked like parcels were provided a code 'UNK' + ID2Data Limitations: The data is not consistent from original sources, and time acquired. There are different formats in the database from the original sources and geometry is not consistent on the borders.
Description: Source Darien (2009), Tigh and Bond 2008: Ridgefield (2008), New Fairfield (2009)Sewell Sherman (2009)Parcel Data Suspected is from DEEP Parcel Data (2011): Wilton, Bethel, New Fairfield, Brookfield, Bridgewater. Deep Description Below.Connecticut Parcels includes parcel information for selected towns in Connecticut where parcel data was available in digital format at the time the data was acquired from the town or other state agency data sources. Data is neither comlete nor current. Boundaries are not based on survey information. This parcel layer includes information provided by individual municipalities. These parcel data are incomplete and out of date. The accuracy, currency and completeness of the data reflect the content of the data at the time DEEP acquired the data from the individual municipalities. Attribute information is comprised of values such as town name and map lot block number. These data are not updated by CT DEEP and should only be used as a general reference. Critical decisions involving parcel-level information should be based on more recently acquired information from the respective municipalities. These parcels are not to be considered legal boundaries such as boundaries determined from certain classified survey maps or deed descriptions. Parcel boundaries shown in this layer are based on information from municipalities used for property tax purposes. Largely due to differences in horizontal accuracy among various data layers,these parcel boundaries wll not line up exactly with or be properly postioned relative to features shown on other layers available from CT DEEP such as scanned USGS topography quadrangle maps, roads, hydrography, town boundaries, and even orthophotograpy.A 2017 set of parcel data was collected from TeleAtlas for the following towns: Greenwich, Stamford, Norwalk, Westport, New Canaan, Redding, Danbury, Newtown, New MilfordWeston had its own 2017 update from NEGEOModifications to data: Data was edited to standardize it among multiple sources. Building units, water bodies, slivers, and right of way have been removed. Parcels which had no identifer but looked like parcels were provided a code 'UNK' + ID2Data Limitations: The data is not consistent from original sources, and time acquired. There are different formats in the database from the original sources and geometry is not consistent on the borders.
Description: Source Darien (2009), Tigh and Bond 2008: Ridgefield (2008), New Fairfield (2009)Sewell Sherman (2009)Parcel Data Suspected is from DEEP Parcel Data (2011): Wilton, Bethel, New Fairfield, Brookfield, Bridgewater. Deep Description Below.Connecticut Parcels includes parcel information for selected towns in Connecticut where parcel data was available in digital format at the time the data was acquired from the town or other state agency data sources. Data is neither comlete nor current. Boundaries are not based on survey information. This parcel layer includes information provided by individual municipalities. These parcel data are incomplete and out of date. The accuracy, currency and completeness of the data reflect the content of the data at the time DEEP acquired the data from the individual municipalities. Attribute information is comprised of values such as town name and map lot block number. These data are not updated by CT DEEP and should only be used as a general reference. Critical decisions involving parcel-level information should be based on more recently acquired information from the respective municipalities. These parcels are not to be considered legal boundaries such as boundaries determined from certain classified survey maps or deed descriptions. Parcel boundaries shown in this layer are based on information from municipalities used for property tax purposes. Largely due to differences in horizontal accuracy among various data layers,these parcel boundaries wll not line up exactly with or be properly postioned relative to features shown on other layers available from CT DEEP such as scanned USGS topography quadrangle maps, roads, hydrography, town boundaries, and even orthophotograpy.A 2017 set of parcel data was collected from TeleAtlas for the following towns: Greenwich, Stamford, Norwalk, Westport, New Canaan, Redding, Danbury, Newtown, New MilfordWeston had its own 2017 update from NEGEOModifications to data: Data was edited to standardize it among multiple sources. Building units, water bodies, slivers, and right of way have been removed. Parcels which had no identifer but looked like parcels were provided a code 'UNK' + ID2Data Limitations: The data is not consistent from original sources, and time acquired. There are different formats in the database from the original sources and geometry is not consistent on the borders.