Remarks by Frederick Johnson, II
19 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 1
- Play at 25:08
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 30:02
“Commissioner Johnson? A follow-up on Commissioner Lloyd's question. I would assume then that the case she referenced, 26009MA, as noncompliant was done before the new comp plan was adopted. Yes, that would be correct.”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 31:57
“Comments? Here, entertain a motion. Yes.”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 32:02
“Case of 2017-MA, put forth a motion to send it to... The council recommendation of approval.”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 54:43
“Commissioner, just a friendly amendment, if I missed it, just to include case number 26031MA. Yes.”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 55:59
“Not hearing any. All right. Wait. Question. When staff turned the zoning layer on with the roads, it left the question, what is the, is that a drainage ditch that's the larger swath going across? Yes.”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 1:12:43
“Yes, sir. For those of us that are moderately colorblind challenged, would you walk around the three light green shades surrounding the parcel, please? Cross Mirapond Road, Point Bains.”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 1:16:25
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 1:17:27
“This is observation just to state what seems to be. Typically, the opposition is where a owner or developer is seeking a higher level of density or higher to up zone as opposed to a lower level. So to the request, the R3 is a higher density zoning than the subject parcel is requesting.”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 1:18:04
“Staff is saying per comprehensive plan, you would prefer for it to be a higher level of density.”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 1:44:19
“Who wants to be brave and give me a motion? I don't have... Mr. Chairman, I don't have a motion, but I'll just give you my thoughts. I mean, until... That last piece of information came up. I mean, I was prepared to present a motion to support staff's determination as sending it to council as denial based on being non-compliant. But if it's adjacent parcel is contiguous and has the same zoning, there's at least a legal rationalization to grant it. But I will defer to my colleagues.”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 1:50:03
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 2:04:19
“would be determined in the development process of that yes okay thank you thank you officially commissioner johnson this is our the map 185 appears to be incorrect then what is the balance of the site being zoned”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 2:04:50
“What I'm saying is that that's the entirety of the parcel that's currently highlighted, but that's not the entirety of what's being rezoned, correct?”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 2:05:08
“84 is correct. Boundary, yes. So I was asking about, so this would remain M1? That's correct.”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 2:06:03
“Typically, as far as I remember, historically, those of you who have been here a while, if we have rezoned a portion of a parcel, it was already subdivided, I thought.”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 2:07:55
“Commissioner Johnson. Chairman, just to reconcile my memory from last month and the thought process at that time, what was the request in terms of the zoning when we discussed?”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 2:25:13
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026
- Play at 2:31:45
“Not really relevant, but Same parcel when the folks came in and said they were trying to pull a building permit to make some improvements. The same parcel?”
Planning Commission · Oct 5, 2026