October 22, 2025 By Carol Britton Meyer
In response to numerous questions from citizens about the proposed site for a new Center for Active Living on Bare Cove Park Drive and what other alternatives were explored, Susan Murphy – the town’s real estate counsel — provided an update to the select board on Tuesday.
During her presentation, Murphy talked about the town’s Article 97 petition seeking approval to use this park land under a state Act that sets forth the related requirements and process – in this case to use the property for a new senior center.
This includes a review by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, which oversees all the state’s environmental agencies and departments.
Article 97 prohibits the change in use of parks and recreation land without approval of the Legislature.
The 2025 Town Meeting voted by a two-thirds majority to authorize the Select Board to file a petition for Article 97 approval.
Following submission by the town to the state of the information required under the Act, the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government voted favorably on the town’s petition, which now awaits votes by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The replacement land is of equal or greater value than the Center for Active Living site under all three of the Article 97 criteria, according to Murphy. Notably, the required replacement land near Plymouth River School lies entirely within medium- and high-yield aquifers, which is the town’s water supply.
Determination ‘not an approval or denial’ of project
The Secretary of EOEEA issued a letter dated October 3 confirming that the natural resource value of the replacement land is of equal or greater value compared to the HCAL site.
“This determination is not an approval or denial of the [CAL] project,” Murphy explained. “Only the legislature can rule on Article 97 issues.”
Select Board Chair William Ramsey called the recent news “a big step in the process.”
He also noted that there has been a lot of interest lately in using the Union Street golf range site for the CAL. However, Murphy outlined the reasons why this is not the preferred option due in part to neighborhood and traffic impacts in an already busy area near the high school in addition to environmental considerations and concerns.
Another site that has been recommended by some residents is the former Hitchcock Shoes site on Beal Street. However, Murphy said she believes the property is under a purchase and sale agreement, among other limitations and considerations.
Plymouth River School is another site that has been suggested. However, Town Administrator Tom Mayo reported that he spoke with the school department “and there are no plans to abandon or not use the building fully for school purposes.”
‘The town has done its due diligence’
“I think people are trying to be creative, but the town has done its due diligence,” Select Board member Liz Klein said.
Another issue that some residents have brought up is whether the site is a wildlife sanctuary.
Murphy explained the reasons why it’s not. In part, while the 1985 Town Meeting authorized the selectmen at that time to take the necessary actions “to try to establish a wildlife refuge in this area,” that never happened and “a wildlife sanctuary was never created,” she said.
Still other residents wonder why the current senior center can’t be expanded into the former police headquarters next door, which was initially proposed.
CAL Building Committee Chair Tom Carey aired his views. “The committee explored expanding [the current CAL], new construction as a standalone building [on the current site], and different options [at other locations].”
There were “15 public meetings throughout 2024, and last November, the committee concluded that the site was not feasible, not the least of which [is the lack of parking]. That’s a non-starter,” Carey said.
When that option was under consideration, there was significant opposition to a proposal to pave over Cronin or Haley Field to make room for more parking.
‘People have joined in the meetings at different times’
Select Board member Julie Strehle expressed appreciation for the update and “the ability to reset the table” and go through the suggestions about possible alternative locations made by residents and why the Bare Cove Park Drive site was deemed the most appropriate.
“People have joined in these meetings over the years at different times,” she noted.
The https://www.hingham-ma.gov/Faq.aspx?TID=45 webpage on the town website details FAQs related to the CAL project regarding land issues – including the information shared by Murphy this week – as well as the CAL feasibility study.
The webpage explains what alternative sites were considered for the CAL; what Article 97 is; whether the town is complying with Article 97 and other requirements for the CAL site; the definition of “replacement land” and related natural resource values; whether the CAL site is an ACEC (Area of Critical Environmental Concern); whether the site is part of a wildlife sanctuary; and whether state environmental agencies have oversight of the CAL site.
The latest estimated cost for the proposed new Center for Active Living is $31.4 million, with an expected ask of about $29.6 million – including utilities, roughly $8 million for site work, and the funds that have been spent to date – at the annual Town Meeting next Spring. The parcel is roughly five acres.
The estimated project cost presented to Town Meeting 2025 was $34.1 million. If the project passes muster at next Spring’s annual Town Meeting, the targeted opening timeframe is 2028.
For more information, go to https://www.hingham-ma.gov/1080/Center-for-Active-Living-Building-Projec.
In a presentation beyond the noticed topic of updates on the Town’s Article 97 petition, the Town was undoubtedly reacting to the many questions it received from the community about this project. At no time was it said that building the senior center at an alternative site, like the Union Street driving range, was not possible, only that it has hurdles. As pointed out, these are the same sorts of hurdles the Town is dealing with at the proposed site (2/3 legislature vote, 200 feet river front buffer, etc.) What wasn’t acknowledged were any of the relative advantages of the Union Street parcel – its flat, virtually treeless, in the center of town, and is on land owned free and clear by Hingham (the Federal government can never take it away).
As for the wildlife refuge, the Town warrant article that was voted on at Town meeting and unanimously approved referred to “an Act of the General Court, if any is required.” Hingham police officer and Back River Committee member George Dolan working collaboratively with Hingham’s Town Counsel at the time, followed what he was advised was needed to implement the unanimously voted goal of protecting birds and mammals in the 470 acres of Bare Cove Park. For another administration to now dictate that what was accomplished by Town Meeting in the past, “never happened” is frightening (did anyone see that protest this past Saturday)?
Thank you Hingham Anchor for following this project. It’s hard to keep up with all the meetings and information coming out.
Why Bear Cove Park Drive Remains the Preferred Site
• Sited outside wetlands/riverfront resource areas; layout developed with Conservation and Engineering to avoid environmental impacts.
• Advances the federal Lands to Parks (FLP) program purpose by replacing a dilapidated, unused depot building with a modern public facility supporting recreation and social connection.
Why Union Street (driving range) Is Not Practical
• Cleared area ≈ 3.4 acres (HCAL needs 4.5–5 acres); would require significant clearing.
• Weir River border → 200 ft riverfront setback; >4 acres floodplain; >2 acres wetlands.
• Entire site is within the aquifer/wellhead protection district; >4 acres mapped aquatic core habitat.
• No sewer; MWRA OP 11 with special legislation likely; large septic would push building/parking toward homes.
• Heavy traffic and school adjacent congestion add further neighborhood impacts.
What About Other Suggested Sites?
• Plymouth River School: Confirmed by the school department—no plans to close or reduce use; currently at capacity with a new kindergarten class.
• Town Hall/current Senior Center site: Explored through a year long feasibility study with 15 public meetings; deemed not feasible due to parking and recreation field conflicts.
Is Bear Cove a Wildlife Sanctuary?
• No legal sanctuary was ever created. A 1985 Town Meeting vote authorized pursuing one subject to several conditions (including an Act of the General Court). Those conditions were not met; state records show no designation in Hingham. •
• A sign installed in 2004 by the Bear Cove Park Committee was based on a mistaken belief, not a legal status.
The Town’s special real estate counsel, Susan Murphy, addressed the following during the Select Board meeting on Tuesday:
She confirmed that while the 1985 Town Meeting did vote to authorize the Select Board to pursue creation of a wildlife refuge, that authorization was conditional, subject to several actions that legally would have needed to occur afterward, including an Act of the General Court and other state and federal approvals. None of those steps were ever completed, and no bill was ever filed or enacted.
The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife has also confirmed in writing (most recently in 2017) that no land in Hingham has ever been designated as a wildlife sanctuary or refuge under Massachusetts law. That’s why, from a legal standpoint, the 1985 vote did not result in a sanctuary being established…because the statutory process simply wasn’t carried out.
I found the SB to be extremely enlightening. I encourage everyone to watch.
Thank you Hingham Anchor for following this project. It’s hard to keep up with all the meetings and information coming out.
Why Bear Cove Park Drive Remains the Preferred Site
• Sited outside wetlands/riverfront resource areas; layout developed with Conservation and Engineering to avoid environmental impacts.
• Advances the federal Lands to Parks (FLP) program purpose by replacing a dilapidated, unused depot building with a modern public facility supporting recreation and social connection.
Why Union Street (driving range) Is Not Practical
• Cleared area ≈ 3.4 acres (HCAL needs 4.5–5 acres); would require significant clearing.
• Weir River border → 200 ft riverfront setback; >4 acres floodplain; >2 acres wetlands.
• Entire site is within the aquifer/wellhead protection district; >4 acres mapped aquatic core habitat.
• No sewer; MWRA OP 11 with special legislation likely; large septic would push building/parking toward homes.
• Heavy traffic and school adjacent congestion add further neighborhood impacts.
What About Other Suggested Sites?
• Plymouth River School: Confirmed by the school department—no plans to close or reduce use; currently at capacity with a new kindergarten class.
• Town Hall/current Senior Center site: Explored through a year long feasibility study with 15 public meetings; deemed not feasible due to parking and recreation field conflicts.
Is Bear Cove a Wildlife Sanctuary?
• No legal sanctuary was ever created. A 1985 Town Meeting vote authorized pursuing one subject to several conditions (including an Act of the General Court). Those conditions were not met; state records show no designation in Hingham. •
• A sign installed in 2004 by the Bear Cove Park Committee was based on a mistaken belief, not a legal status.
The Town’s special real estate counsel, Susan Murphy, addressed the following during the Select Board meeting on Tuesday:
She confirmed that while the 1985 Town Meeting did vote to authorize the Select Board to pursue creation of a wildlife refuge, that authorization was conditional, subject to several actions that legally would have needed to occur afterward, including an Act of the General Court and other state and federal approvals. None of those steps were ever completed, and no bill was ever filed or enacted.
The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife has also confirmed in writing (most recently in 2017) that no land in Hingham has ever been designated as a wildlife sanctuary or refuge under Massachusetts law. That’s why, from a legal standpoint, the 1985 vote did not result in a sanctuary being established…because the statutory process simply wasn’t carried out.
I found the SB to be extremely enlightening. I encourage everyone to watch.
What bothers me more than anything is that people have not been following this issue from the beginning. I have ridden all over this town and am very aware of the growth of Hingham’s population which has added to the increase of traffic all over town, the need for housing and for public open space. It is a shame that Hingham voted not to buy Baker’s Hill to add to open public lands. When you look at the map put out by the Hingham Land Conservation Trust it appears that Hingham’s land area looks like 50/50 for public land and private. I am not aware of a ‘land swap’ behind Plymouth River School and would like to learn more about this proposal.