View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version





Site Plan Approval for Hingham High School Athletic Complex Renovations Phase II

Applicant:      Hingham School Committee

                        210 Central Street


Project Site:   17 Union Street

                        Hingham Assessor’s Map/Lot:  90-0-112; 100-0-63; 100-0-61; 101-0-8


The Planning Board issued a Notice of Decision, dated March 11, 2013 (“Original Decision”), as amended by Amendment to Notice of Decision, dated March 25, 2013 (the “Amendment” and together with the Original Decision, the “Decision”), in connection with the Application of the Hingham School Committee (“Applicant” or “School Committee”) for Site Plan Review under Sections I-H and III-B.8 of the Hingham Zoning By-Law, subject to and with the benefit of the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 40A, Section 3 commonly known as the “Dover Amendment.”

As required by Condition A of the Amendment, the Applicant submitted a full set of revised plans with all required changes (“Revised Plan Set”).[1] 

A public hearing of the Planning Board was held on June 10, 2013 to review and ratify the Revised Plan Set.  At the June 10, 2013 meeting it was moved, seconded and unanimously SO VOTED:  To approve and ratify the Revised Plan Set entitled “Hingham High School Athletic Complex Renovation – Phase II” (67 Sheets), dated December 12, 2012, revised through April 19, 2013, prepared by Gale Associates, except for the boys’ baseball field scoreboard and girls’ softball field scoreboard (subject to those exceptions, the Revised Plan Set shall hereafter be referred to as the “Approved Plans”).

A public hearing of the Planning Board was subsequently held on August 5, 2013 to review the size, orientation and locations of the scoreboards.  The Planning Board hearing was conducted by Judy Sneath, Sarah Corey, Walter Sullivan, Gary Tondorf-Dick and William Ramsey. 


Ray Estes, Chairman of School Committee introduced himself to the Board.  Ms. Sneath stated she read the minutes.  Mr. Estes then reviewed the size, orientation and locations of the scoreboards.  There was a discussion of what baseline the scoreboards should be placed on.  Ms. Sneath stated that if standard practice is to place them on left field then she had heard no compelling reason to move them to right field.  She also observed that moving the scoreboards to right field would result in the neighbors looking at the red face of the scoreboards instead of the profile.  Mr. Estes stated that the LED lights would not be on during the evening hours. 

There was additional discussion on options to relocate scoreboards and the size of the scoreboards.  There was discussion about at what point during the approval process the scoreboards were mentioned to the public.  Ms. Sneath observed that it is consistent with athletic uses to have scoreboards and that even if the details of the scoreboards were not clear during the process the Board does not have the authority to prohibit them.


It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED to act favorably on the request for amendment to the Site Plan approval for the softball and baseball scoreboards as presented and depicted on the Approved Plans dated April 19, 2013.

The motion passed 3-1 with Mr. Tondorf-Dick opposed. 


Except as specifically modified by this Third Amendment, the Decision remains in full force and effect.





William Ramsey
Chairman, Hingham Planning Board



EXECUTED this ____ day of September, 2013



Plymouth, ss                                                                                  September _____, 2013

Then personally appeared William Ramsey, Chairman of the Hingham Planning Board, and acknowledged the foregoing to be the free act and deed of said Board.



Karen M. Clancy, Notary Public                        My Commission Expires:  July 22, 2016

[1] It is noted that the vote in the Original Decision contained a scrivener’s error stating the “revised through” date of the approved plan set as January 22, 2013 (“Original Plan Set”).  In fact, the Original Plan Set referenced in the Original Decision was revised through January 18, 2013 and stamped “Received” by the Planning Board on January 22, 2013.  The Original Plan Set is superseded by the plan set referenced in this Second Amendment.