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