The Fairfax Planning Commission on Sept. 4 continued consideration of discretionary permits for 79 Wood Lane after the town attorney advised that the application lacks the signature required under state practice rules to be considered complete.

Staff presented the application for a partially completed two-story residence with a basement ADU, a one-car garage and a 478-square-foot second-floor front deck. The current owner, Red River Gum LLC, bought the property in December 2024 and seeks a Hill Area Residential Development permit, design review, a front-setback variance, a combined side-yard setback variance, and an excavation permit to legalize work that did not follow the previously issued building permit.

Why the commission paused: The planning director told commissioners she had received a legal memorandum during the meeting stating that, in the town attorney's opinion, an LLC cannot be the signatory for the architectural drawings under the state's architectural practice provisions and that the application is incomplete without an architect's stamp or another signatory who meets the statutory requirements. "The way the town attorney described it is, in her opinion, the application is incomplete without the architect stamp," the planning director said during the hearing.

What staff found: Staff's earlier presentation said most zoning standards are met but identified two required variances: a front-setback variance because the front access stairs encroach into the required 6-foot minimum front setback (one corner at 2 feet), and a combined side-yard variance because the basement ADU entry stairs and window well project to 5 feet on one side while the garage sits 5 feet on the other for a combined 10 feet instead of the required 20. Staff reported approximately 208 cubic yards of excavation for the basement, and described geotechnical and drainage measures including a subdrain feeding a sump pump, a proposed 2-foot tall landslide debris fence atop a retaining wall, and an eastern landscape detention basin to control runoff.

Applicant and neighbors: The applicant, Richard Behan (represented in part by True Blue Builders), said he has supplied civil, geotechnical and structural stamps and that the only unresolved item was obtaining an architectural stamp on the drawings. He told the commission he has been helping assemble materials and asked for a way to move the project forward. Blaney White, the loan officer for CrossCountry Mortgage, testified the property had to be purchased in an LLC to secure financing for a previously red-tagged, unfinished project and that the borrower faces deadlines tied to the lender's timeframe.

Concerns and options discussed: Commissioners and staff discussed possible paths: (1) obtain an architect stamp and continue the item to a date certain for final review, (2) deny the application so the applicant could appeal to the Town Council, or (3) continue while staff and the town attorney review alternative signatory options such as adding the individual owner to title or having a licensed individual (for example a licensed contractor or architect) accept responsibility and sign. Commissioner Jansen, an architect who spoke during public comment, said signing the documents would impose liability on any architect and that he would need to be compensated to assume that responsibility.

Decision and next steps: The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to continue the item to Sept. 18, 2025, to give the applicant and staff time to pursue solutions (for example: obtain a stamp from a licensed architect, ask the town attorney to confirm whether a licensed individual other than an architect could satisfy the requirement, or record the owner as a natural person on title in addition to the LLC). Planning staff said the town would treat a set of drawings with an architect stamp as a complete application and, from that submission date, the Permit Streamlining Act timelines would apply. Staff also warned that the town attorney cannot be compelled to immediately prioritize this matter and that, depending on availability, the town may not be able to produce an authoritative answer before the continued hearing.

Noted technical details and conditions mentioned by staff that would apply if the commission grants approvals at a later hearing: required recording of drainage-maintenance responsibilities, a town-standard dark-sky lighting plan if exterior lighting is proposed, and Ross Valley Fire Department and building-code compliance for basement ceiling and debris catchment structure (the town engineer asked for verification that the debris catchment structure has adequate volume and strength).

The commission's continuance preserves the commission's ability to act on the planning approvals once a legally complete application is submitted or the town attorney provides written guidance on an alternate signatory path.

Votes and formal action:
Continued to Sept. 18, 2025 (motion carried by roll call vote: Swift: yes; Petrone: yes; Jansen: yes; Newton: yes; Chair Pfeffer: yes).