Closing West Mill Road

  • Like
Reactions: RednekF350
Thank You RedneckF350 for all the research you have done regarding the newly constructed gate on Route 206. I'm much more educated on the situation now then I was yesterday at this time!

I started a thread in December 2015 regarding the flooding of West Mill Road. The link to that thread is as follows:

https://forums.njpinebarrens.com/threads/west-mill-firebreak.10930/

I've been going back West Mill Road (from Route 206) for the last 27 years. I mainly go back there to deer hunt and hike in the State Forest. I never went onto his property. No reason to with all the State Forest back there. The portion of the road that sits northeast of Paradise Lakes was flooded the last 2 Falls (2015 and 2016). 1 mile portion of the road was flooded and nearly impassable. I always thought the owner of Paradise Lakes deliberately flooded the road to prevent folks like myself from using West Mill Road. I never saw evidence of beavers causing the flooding.

With the construction of the gate of Route 206 by the owner of Paradise Lakes my thoughts regarding the flooding have been confirmed. Deliberately flooding the road didn't work so the next step was to construct a gate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RednekF350
bobpbx said:
Thank you for that investigative work and reporting Scott. It seems to me some members of the public would want to have the road reopened if there were any chance it could be reopened for their use.

So, what would you recommend the interested public do next in order to cause it to be reopened for public use?
Click to expand...
The wheels are in motion. BTW- The road names are similar to some of our botanical names. You can get several common names for a single plant but a positive ID requires the scientific name!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobpbx, smoke_jumper and RednekF350
Cherokee261 said:
The State of NJ interactive tax map lists the "unnamed public road" as Sycamore Road, and it shows the current access to Paradise Lakes (not on Hammonton tax map), as "W Mills Rd". Does that mean that the main access road to Paradise Lakes is a state road through Wharton? I wonder where the state pulls the data from for the map? If it was just a codification of municipal tax maps, then the roads, and the road names, would match the Hammonton tax map.

http://njgin.state.nj.us/oit/gis/NJ_TaxListSearch/
Click to expand...

Yes the main road in is state property. He recently widened it so let's see what happens with that.
 
I looked at robs (map) and that rd was to be open for travel by motor vehicle so they must have claimed it on the rtp grant to fix the bridge.
 
Teegate said:
Yes the main road in is state property. He recently widened it so let's see what happens with that.
Click to expand...
So if the state didn't put the gate up, and didn't close the road, and it's on state land can you be charged with a crime for
cutting the lock and using the road?
Also was a permit pulled for it's construction?
 
I spoke to a ranger at the atsion station today. From what I understand the dep nor the state closed the road. So that means the park police will not enforce the no trespassing signs. The Hammonton police would be the only ones enforcing the no trespassing and you will never see a hammonton police officer out there unless they are called there by the owner of the camp ground. Nor will. They be driving there vehicles off road to stop you. So I will continue to ride back there.
 
RednekF350 said:
Well sixer, at times like this I like to look to the rumor mill as a reliable source of information. And according to the rumor mill, the State is very concerned from several different standpoints.

Go State Go !
Click to expand...

Very true. They are concerned. I say if all else fails we have the FFS plow a road parallel to it. But from what I know about his property line he has to cross state land to get to that road so they could just keep him off. There is one small road that enters his property but I don't believe it is a public road and if it happens to be I say we have the state make it non public. It is so very odd to be on the states side but sometimes you just have to dance with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RednekF350
By Hammonton entering into a License Agreement it would appear as though Hammonton is claiming ownership of this "unnamed road" (?) Was Hammonton then responsible for this section of road's upkeep? If yes, would the $5,000 license agreement - 1) put money into Hammonton's coffers and 2) remove them from the financial cost of maintaining this road? If points 1 and 2 are correct it would be an initial and then ongoing financial benefit to Hammonton to walk away from responsibility and they may actually fight the State on reopening to the public. For Mr. Miller to pay $5,000 on the agreement and multi-thousands on the gate in good faith it may be financially costly for the State to unbind this License. Interesting stuff. I have never driven this road and I would be curious on how many vehicles were using this road on average. Certainly less than QBR, Hampton or Carranza I would think....interested to see how this all pans out. I hope cooler heads prevail as any damage done to the gate or his property in the meantime will certainly provide legal standing to his claim that his property was being used improperly prior to the gate being installed. (He had claimed quads and trucks driving off of sand roads into his property were causing damage). Let's see what the State's decision is.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back