The Fairfax Planning Commission on May 15 approved a conditional use permit and associated variances to legalize several existing and under‑construction elements at 2 Inyo Avenue — including a stairway, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) previously finalized without the correct water entitlement, an approximately 104‑square‑foot addition and a relocated storage shed — but withheld approval for a raised wooden planter that encroaches into the required side‑yard setback.

The decision matters to neighbors around Inyo Avenue, who testified that the planter and a relocated shed could create fire and safety risks, and to the property owner, who told the commission the work was done to improve safety and make the house more functional.

Staff described the project as a combination of legalization and modest additions: code‑compliant access improvements, a hot‑tub pad, an art water feature with a cistern at the lowest part of the backyard, relocation of an unpermitted shed, and a 104‑square‑foot addition intended to create a safer front entry and a larger dining area. Staff said the site is a legally nonconforming lot with slope and width constraints that require a conditional use permit and combined side‑yard setback variances to regularize new and existing structures and additions.

Neighbors at 8 Inyo and nearby said they had not learned of the plans until they received the town notice and raised specific concerns. Ralph Ardido told the commission the staff materials do not clearly show the raised planter; he cited staff notes that the planter would be approximately 7 feet 4 inches above the lowest existing grade and warned a wooden planter built up against a wooden privacy fence would rot and increase fire risk. Steve Ardito added that the planter and a tall shed located directly behind the privacy fence would place additional combustible material close to his 92‑year‑old mother’s house, increasing evacuation risk.

Commissioners and staff probed several technical points during the hearing. Commissioners questioned setback tables and dimensions shown on the plans; staff acknowledged errors and said they would correct the setback figures and had advised the owner the project will be subject to standard building plan review and engineering requirements before permits are issued. Staff also reported that Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) indicated the property must establish an increased water entitlement for the ADU, and that MMWD rules on entitlement and water‑conservation compliance must be met before final approval of services.

On the planter, commissioners and neighbors described the structure as more than a planting bed. Staff and speakers said the built element is roughly footed above grade, lined with planting plastic, includes a roughly 2‑foot planting depth, provides storage space underneath, and in places reaches about 5–7 feet above adjacent grade. Commissioners noted that retaining walls or noncombustible materials would address fire concerns and that engineered drawings would be required at building‑permit review to show structural safety for any retained or elevated earth or cistern features.

After discussion the commission voted unanimously to approve the application with standard conditions and the required findings, but to withhold approval for the raised planter. The motion passed on a roll call in which all seven commissioners voted yes. Staff told the applicant and public there is a 10‑day appeal period for the decision.

The commission and staff repeatedly emphasized that any work remaining or proposed would require building‑permit plan check and engineering review. Staff said that if structural work does not meet code, elements would need to be removed or retrofitted before final permits are issued.

The applicant said the 104‑square‑foot addition would allow a larger dining table and would provide a safer, more “gracious” entry than the existing front stairs, and offered to work with neighbors on plant choice and materials. Neighbors asked for alternatives — including planting in ground, different colors for the neighbor’s privacy screen, or using noncombustible planter materials — and commissioners suggested continuing the item or delegating final design review to staff only if the applicant and neighbors can agree.

The commission recorded conditions in the resolution related to water‑district entitlements and standard engineering and building review; staff noted the APN correction and typographical changes to the staff report prior to finalization.

The commission’s action regularizes several long‑existing nonconforming elements on the lot and approves additions aimed at safety and habitability, while declining to endorse a new raised wooden planter that encroaches into the setback and raised neighbor safety concerns. There is a 10‑day appeal window following the decision.