Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parcel Data And Survey Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surveyors and borough staff debate digital CAD submissions and monument‑tie standards
Summary
Dylan Hickey proposed requiring at least one observed tie to a GLO/BLM monument and accepting stripped CAD exports (DXF/DWG) to speed GIS imports; surveyors supported the idea technically but warned incremental requirements can raise costs and administrative burden.
Dylan Hickey, the borough’s land management surveyor, proposed that plats include at least one directly observed tie to a GLO/BLM monument and that the borough accept a stripped CAD/DXF or DWG export of parcel line work to speed GIS imports. Hickey said the change would improve the accuracy of the borough’s parcel fabric and reduce staff time recreating digital data from paper plats.
Surveyors at the March 7 session said exporting basic line work is generally straightforward and already part of many workflows, but several cautioned that small, incremental submission requirements can expand into costly standards over time. Christopher Mulligan and others urged the borough to adopt a short, director‑approved standard for CAD exports rather than embedding detailed technical specifications into code.
Hickey and staff said they were mindful of cost to small landowners and did not intend to impose onerous new requirements. He suggested a light specification—one directly observed tie to a GLO/BLM monument outside the subdivision boundary and minimal vector line work (polygons for lots and boundaries) in a common exchange format such as DXF—would be helpful without being burdensome. Staff also noted that where field work is not required (for example, paper‑only plats or simple lot vacations) any digital tie would similarly not be required.
On measurement precision, Hickey said the borough would defer to professional land surveyors’ discretion: meeting accuracy goals (for example, BLM statistical accuracy guidance) could be met by different workflows, including RTK shots or ties to monuments with known accuracy, rather than prescribing a single occupation time like a four‑hour static observation.
No formal code change was adopted; staff said any future technical standard would likely be promulgated by the planning director as an administrative standard rather than a code amendment, and that they would solicit written feedback by email before any formal policy change.
Next steps: staff invited surveyors to give feedback by email on proposed digital standards and said they will pilot importing stripped CAD exports to measure actual staff time savings before recommending any formal requirement.
