• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Log In
Itemlive

Itemlive

North Shore news powered by The Daily Item

  • News
  • Sports
  • Opinion
  • Lifestyle
  • Police/Fire
  • Government
  • Obituaries
  • Archives
  • E-Edition
  • Help
This article was published 12 year(s) and 4 month(s) ago

Swampscott voters reject demo delay bylaw revisions

ktaylor

May 9, 2013 by ktaylor

SWAMPSCOTT – Voters denied amendments to a “demo delay” bylaw proposed by the Historical Commission at Town Meeting, feeling that it implies that homeowners affected by fire may have committed arson.The article called for several amendments to the bylaw that Chairman Susan Munafo said would provide more transparency and definition to the law. The proposed demo delay amendment read that in the event that a building deemed “historically significant” is destroyed by fire or other cause before or during a demolition delay, “a rebuttable presumption shall arise that the owner voluntarily demolished the building,” and unless the owners could prove they had taken steps to secure the building against a fire, they would lose their building permit for two years.Town Meeting member Jack Beermann asked for that section of the bylaw be stricken from the article. Voters obliged in a majority vote.?In this bylaw, if hurricane destroys building? the owner is presumed to have violently destroyed the building,” said Beermann.Bill Dimento, the attorney who represented Groom Construction in the Greenwood Avenue Fisherman?s Watch development placed on demo delay, pointed out that every building in Swampscott that was built before 1938 was subject to the bylaw and the proposed amendments.Board of Selectmen Chairman Jill Sullivan said she was speaking as a Town Meeting member when she moved for indefinite postponement of the article because the bylaw amendments had too much “overreach.”Sullivan referred to the amendment that said before the nine months of demo delay were over, the property owner would have to take photographs of the interior and exterior of the building and “all for salvage of any unique architectural detail that would otherwise be lost during the demolition process.”Sullivan said from the podium, “I think that?s a pretty steep burden for the owner of a personal property.”Following Sullivan?s motion, a majority voted postponed the article, and the bylaw amendments failed.Kait Taylor can be reached at [email protected].

  • ktaylor
    ktaylor

    View all posts

Related posts:

No related posts.

Primary Sidebar

Advertisement

Sponsored Content

Solo Travel Safety Hacks: How to Use eSIM and Tech to Stay Connected and Secure in Australia

How Studying Psychology Can Equip You To Better Help Your Community

Solo Travel Safety Hacks: How to Use eSIM and Tech to Stay Connected and Secure in Australia

Advertisement

Upcoming Events

“WIN” Wine Tasting Mixer at Lucille!

October 9, 2025
Lucille Wine Shop

1st Annual Cornhole Tournament

September 18, 2025
Old Tyme Italian Cuisine

1st Annual Lynn Food Truck & Craft Beverage Festival presented by Greater Lynn Chamber of Commerce

September 27, 2025
Blossom Street, Lynn,01905, US 89 Blossom St, Lynn, MA 01902-4592, United States

5th Annual Brickett Trunk or Treat

October 23, 2025
123 Lewis St., Lynn, MA, United States, Massachusetts 01902

Footer

About Us

  • About Us
  • Editorial Practices
  • Advertising and Sponsored Content

Reader Services

  • Subscribe
  • Manage Your Subscription
  • Activate Subscriber Account
  • Submit an Obituary
  • Submit a Classified Ad
  • Daily Item Photo Store
  • Submit A Tip
  • Contact
  • Terms and Conditions

Essex Media Group Publications

  • La Voz
  • Lynnfield Weekly News
  • Marblehead Weekly News
  • Peabody Weekly News
  • 01907 The Magazine
  • 01940 The Magazine
  • 01945 The Magazine
  • North Shore Golf Magazine

© 2025 Essex Media Group