NJBERGEN-L Archives

Archiver > NJBERGEN > 2001-05 > 0989268601


From: "R L Van Valer \(Van\)" <>
Subject: Re: [NJBergen] Overpeck Creek
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 16:50:01 -0400
References: <008201c0d723$08d3f670$9685590c@robert> <3AF6F12A.71858463@earthlink.net> <001101c0d72d$51750ea0$4b74580c@its>


Hi Regina

Yes, indeed. You spotted and defined the problem very quickly and
precisely. I 've been sitting here asking myself what sources to turn to
next for more info.

I know Bob Protzmann's Verveelen Genealogy has some additional
on land Bernardus purchased earlier in Bergen and portions of the
patent he later sold. Maybe searching out the deeds will resolve the
issue.

Thanks...

Van

----- Original Message -----
From: "RMH" <>
To: "Jim Gallagher" <>; <>; "R L
Van Valer (Van)" <>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: [NJBergen] Overpeck Creek


> Just checked my Bergen County road map, and yes indeed, Overpeck is a
large
> "creek", almost as broad as the Hackensack River that it joins. The
problem
> is, if you look at the old maps on the Dutch Door Genealogy website
> http://www.dutchdoorgenealogy.com specifically the one called "Early
> Precincts and Patents on the Rockland County Border", you will see the
> VerValen Patent just southeast of the Tappan Patent, just south of the
> Lockhart Patent. Closter is a town within it. This is well north of the
> description of Overpeck way down in Teaneck and Ridgefield Park, and if
the
> patent lay that far south, it would never have been partly in Rockland
> County.
>
> I can't see where the headwaters of the Overpeck are, don't have a
> geophysical map of the area - is it possible that the beginnings of the
> Overpeck that define the boundaries of the VerValen Patent are far enough
> north to be in Rockland County? Or isn't this Rockland/Bergen VerValen
> patent the one that's being described - is there more than one? Using my
> magnifiying glass on the original of the map referred to above I see
> "Vervalen, N.J.1701, N.Y.1708" and the west boundary seems to be the
> Tienakill. I'm not sure which line is the southern boundary, but if the
> VerValen is 2220 acres as compared with 16,000 in the Tappan Patent, it
> can't extend too far south. Maybe there is more than one VerValen patent?
>
> Regina Haring
> Nanuet, NY
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Gallagher <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 3:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [NJBergen] Overpeck Creek
>
>
> > Yes the Overpeck Creek still exists. My map indicates its source as
north
> of
> > Route 4, probably in MacKay Park, near West Forest Avenue and Overpeck
> Place.
> > It flow generally south making the east boundary of Teaneck and
Ridgefield
> > Park. At Ridgefield Park it turns west where it flows into the
Hackensack
> > River between Ridgefield Park, Ridgefield and Little Ferry a few
hundred
> yards
> > south of where Route 46 crosses the Hackensack River. The distance, of
> course,
> > varies. But it is about 2.25 to 2.5 miles from the east bank of the
> Overpeck
> > Creek to the west back of the Hudson River depending on where you
measure
> and
> > in what direction you take the line. The area now includes the towns
of
> > Palisades Park, Leonia, Fort Lee; and, portions of Englewood, Englewood
> Cliffs,
> > Cliffside Park, Ridgefield, and Edgewater. This should help you spot
it
> on
> > almost any road map.
> >
> > JIM
> >
> >
> >
> > "R L Van Valer (Van)" wrote:
> >
> > > In 1708, my ancestor, Bernardus Verveelen/VerValen and his brother,
> Gideon,
> > > received a patent from Gov. Cornbury of "2220 acres SE corner of
> Rockland
> > > Co. and NE NJ, Overpeck Creek to Hudson River." Can anyone tell me
> where
> > > Overpeck Creek was/is?
> > >
> > > Will very much appreciate any assistance.
> > >
> > > Van
> > >
> > > http://home.att.net/~rlvanvaler
> >
>
>



This thread: