Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-10-21-LCSR-min.pdf 21 COMMISSION ON SUBURBAN RESPONSIBILITY 91 October 71 NEXT MEETING- 6 December m 8ao0 P.M. *° ** *** *********;'*c .dh•':',°* 4* -**.F 4****ti- A rieetin of the ]TSR was held on 21 October 1971 at l^ i115.em Roger Greeley Village at 8 00 P M. Present were Buse, Butters,, Clarke, Clarke, Kassman, Krensky, Mann; McLaughlin, ,ichelman, Power, Riffin, Scotney, .Swots, and Totman. Also present were Judith Baehr, LNV Observer; Gloria Brackett; and two Greeley Village residents, Mrs. Angela K. Ellis and Mrs Beatrice P. Josephson. Minutes of the meeting of 2i September 71 were approved MINUTES as presented. 7/23/71 After discussion of alternatives, it was decided to MEETINGS change the re ;ula°• meeting time to the first Thured of each month , beginning with 2 December/1r-- Er. ecember /1r--Mr, Buse, reported that he had talked with the President MINORITY of the Chamber of Commerce, who had inserted in their GROUP newsletter a notice concerning the employment of EMPLOYMENT minority group people by local business men. Members were urged to make known their interest to Mrs Lusa, who would supply sources for the recruitment of employees. It was suggested that there he scheduled a meeting of C of C people with the Commission to discuss the subject duether. Pointing out that success in recruitment and employment TRANSPORTATIO of minority groups workers hinged on the availability of transportation, a member strongly recommended that the Commission take more initiative in that field. Other members concurred and it was decided that the LCSR should meet with representatives of such official bodies as MAPC, tBTA and the new Department of Transportation, Mr, Mann agreed to assemble information available through colleagues active in the field, and Mrs. Brown will be asked to make inquiries of the NAPO. Mr. Power reported that the contract for construction CONTRACT of housing for the elderly, recently signed by the COMPLIANCE Housing Authority, follows state-wide regulations with regard to employment. These include the usual prohibi- AFFIRMATIVE tion against discrimination as well as an order of ACTION preference for employment, viz. , 1 ) veterans, 2) citi- zens of the town where construction takes place, and 3) citizens of the state Since this is a state project and not a town financial undertaking, the Authority is not direcely subject to the town by-law concerning employment of ;_.inority group workers; but it was felt that the Authority might nevertheless undertake some arrangement with the contractor in order to follow the spirit of the bylaw, 2 • Mr. Michelman reported continued resistance on the part of the masonry sub-contractor on the junior high school job. After some discussion it was VOTED unanimously That the Commission write to the Permanent Building • Committee requesting that the General Contractor be asked to report and document his efforts to require the masonry sub‘contsactor to comply with his contract, and to state whether he intends to withhold payment or take any other steps in the event of continued non- compliance; and that a copy of this letter be sent to the Board. of Selectmen with the suggestion that they reinforce this action: taken by the Commission on behalf of the Selectmen, as monitor of the affirma- tive action employment program ordered by the Town Meeting. It was suggested that further reinforcement be sought from constituent groups represented on the Commission. The chairman presented a progress report on the study SCATTERED under way by the sub-committee on scattered sites for SITES subsidized housing. Since the cost of land at fair market value is too high to permit subsidized develop- ment: the sub- committee is considering only tax title lots: assuming that the town would se7J, them for this purpose well below fair market value. Mr. Michelman displayed a map showing all the tax title lots in the town, and identified those which could be used without major Town Meeting action, i. e. , parcels suitable for single units requiring no zoning change and no street improvements, and not now being used for recreational purposes in densely populated areas. Assuming that the titles can be cleared and that the "grandfather clause" permitting construction on small lots laid out b:.f'orc zoning restrictions were promul- gated, 18 parcels were so identified. Development of these plots would be feasible under Chapter 235: or could be undertaken by a private group. Mrs. Butters was asked to inquire about the possibility of develop- ment by the Interfaith Corporation. Asked whether the sub-committee were unanimous in re- commending development of subsidized housing on these tax title lots, Mr. I•Iichelman replied that they were. Iie further reported that he was scheduled to discuss the findins of the the sub-committee with the Planning Board on 25 October. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10. 00 P.M.