Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Erosion Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks rock revetment for eroded Church Hill bank; commission requires engineered plan and sitewalk
Summary
A Roxbury resident sought permission to place large rock and reshape a stream channel to stop erosion that threatens a garden and driveway at 46 Church Hill. The commission accepted the incomplete application, urged a civil engineer prepare an erosion-control plan, and agreed to a sitewalk before voting on a permit.
An applicant identified as Gordon asked the Roxbury Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission on April 22 to allow large rock and other material to be placed along an eroded stretch of the stream at 46 Church Hill to protect a garden and driveway.
Gordon told the commission that repeated floods have carved a new channel that is encroaching on an asparagus bed and will soon threaten the driveway. “What I'm looking to do is take a lot of material, especially large rock, and rebuild the area to the right there to the east that has just been eroded,” he said, describing photos he provided to staff.
The commission did not approve work at the meeting. Chair Russ D. and other members cautioned that simply dumping rock or moving sandbars without a construction sequence could worsen downstream impacts. “When you're working in a stream like this, the state requires that an engineer do an erosion control plan,” the chair said, emphasizing the need for erosion controls during construction.
Commission members discussed where excavated material could be placed, whether digging out the channel would solve the problem and whether available rock on-site would be sufficient. They said large reclamation projects often require engineered footings; without them, rocks can mobilize in the next big flood.
Next steps set by the commission were practical: the board will accept the incomplete application to enable a sitewalk, the applicant agreed to seek a civil engineer to prepare a plan, and staff will consider the engineer’s submission at the May meeting or in June if revisions are needed. Commissioners also told the applicant that work should be scheduled for low flows in summer rather than during spring runoff.
The commission noted prior, larger Army Corps conversations about upstream flood-control work and said federal projects often require resilient, high-cost designs and local matching funds. The commission’s sitewalk will allow members to inspect the extent of bank loss and practical repair options before any permit vote.
The commission did not take final action on the application at the April meeting. The applicant said he will secure owner authorization by email and consult a civil engineer and contractor; the commission will report next steps after the sitewalk and receipt of an engineered erosion-control plan.
