BC 1995 01 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3O5 * Centralina Council of Governments concludes that Vision Cable's "a la carte" packages are in compliance with currently applicable FCC rules. (Note that individual #a la carte" channels, or pay per view channels, are entirely exempt from Franchise Authority revtew..as are the individual prices set by the operator, for each such channel.) * For future reference, the newest FCC rules issued 11-10-94, state that a Cable Operator may choose to offer future new product tiers, after 1-1-95, as long as limited conditions are met. Vision Cable, therefore would be free to add additional package services, expanding viewer choices, and would be able to offer these packages at a price they choose, as long as certain limited conditions were met. In addition, Vision Cable would not have to complete any forms or obtain the approval of the Franchise Authority or FCC, * Vision Cable cooperated with all requests in the review process, providing all necessary information and clarifications. SUMMARY APPROVED BY: Sandra Albrecht UNFINISHED BUSINESS Petition 94-07 - Conner Rezoning Request Mr. Hartsell reported that Mr. Gerald Newton, Director of Planning, Zoning and Building Inspections, had advised him that Mr. Conner wished to proceed with the rezoning request this evening. Upon questioning, Mr. Conner confirmed that this was correct. Chairman Barnhart read the following' findings of fact and moved to deny Petition 94-07 by Mr. Max Lee Conner. 1. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing by Planning and Zoning Commission Chair Dr. Nancy Randall, unanimous recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission was for denial. This is supported by the Planning and Zoning Board's minutes as submitted into the public hearing record. 2. This rezoning does not adhere to the Midland Area Plan adopted by the Board of Commissioners. Strong consensus at the time the plan was adopted was to encourage commercial and industrial development only along Highway 24/27 and Highway 601 and for the area surrounding the site to remain low and medium density residential. 3. Based on this same reasoning in number 2 above, two other petitions having far less severe impacts and being proposed along Highway 601 were denied by the Cabarrus County Board of Commissioners.. 4. In addressing the existing land use as being suitable as compared to the proposed development plan, it is found that at the given site location, the existing land use and the approved future land uses would be suitable to the area. The proposed development plan can only be contractually rezoned to make it suitable. 5. Although a number of residents spok~ in favor of the petition, a number of residents also spoke against it, and submitted letters of disfavor, at both public hearings. We find that the presence of local discord itself indicates the land use concerns for the use of this site as a trucking facility. 6. While the commissioners agree that the proposed use is a viable business and should continue its operation in the County, it is the position of the Board that the location is not suitable. Commissioner Niblock seconded the motion by Chairman Barnhart. Commissioner Fennel disagreed with the denial of the rezoning, stating that current businesses in the area and businesses on this property in the past were ignored during the Area Plan review. Also, he stated there are businesses next door to the property that require large trucks to travel the same roads as this business will be using. According to Commissioner Fennel, the failure to make allowances for businesses in this particular area was an error in the Area Plan.