Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Fairfax Planning Commission approves 79 Wood Lane owner‑builder project with contractor signature and permit‑filing conditions

September 22, 2025 | Fairfax Town, Marin County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Fairfax Planning Commission approves 79 Wood Lane owner‑builder project with contractor signature and permit‑filing conditions
The Fairfax Town Planning Commission on Sept. 18 approved application 25‑21 for a Hill Area residential development permit, design review permit, excavation permit and variances for 79 Wood Lane, with conditions requiring a licensed contractor to sign the plan set and to be listed as the applicant on the building permit.

Planning staff told the commission that “after researching laws and regulations pertaining to signing architectural plans, it has been determined that the planning commission can take action on this project,” and recommended approval with two conditions. The conditions require (1) the contracting business name and the name, signature, license number and date as prepared by the licensed contractor be shown in the signature block on each plan page, and (2) when the building permit application is filed it must be filed with the licensed contractor as the person filing the application (the LLC may be listed as owner).

The public hearing on this application was held at a prior meeting and was closed; staff said the applicant provided an example of the plan signature block and agreed to comply with the filing requirement. Staff also requested two technical corrections to the draft resolution: to reference the public hearing as having occurred on Sept. 4, 2025, and to insert the applicant’s plan date of Sept. 15, 2025 in the whereas clause.

Commissioner Lito moved to adopt Resolution 2025‑21 to conditionally approve application 25‑21 with the staff corrections; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously on a roll call vote (Swift: aye; Kelly: aye; Petrone: yes; Jansen: aye; Newton: aye; Chair Pfeffer: aye). The commission noted a 10‑day appeals period; information on the appeals process is available from town staff.

The commission’s action permits the project to proceed under the stated conditions but does not itself substitute for any required building permits or inspections to be reviewed and issued by the town building department.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep California articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI
Family Portal
Family Portal