The Fairfax Planning Commission on Aug. 21 halted and then continued a public hearing on the second agenda item after a commissioner raised a legal question about whether an owner‑builder exemption in state law applies when the property owner is a limited liability company.

Commissioner Jansen told the commission he had reviewed the application materials and believed the architectural drawings and application package showed the property was owned by an LLC, which may prevent the owner from using the owner‑builder exemption that allows a natural person to avoid certain licensing requirements. He said the architectural drawings and the cover sheet did not clearly identify who prepared the architectural drawings and that some drawings bore seals from other consultants (structural and civil engineers), creating uncertainty about whether the application complied with state law. That uncertainty led staff to seek guidance from the town attorney.

The town attorney (Janet) was not available at the meeting, and staff relayed that the attorney had advised more legal research was needed and had recommended continuing the item rather than taking action without counsel. Commissioners discussed options — ask the applicant for a continuance, proceed with public questions and comment but not act, or proceed to a decision despite the attorney’s caution.

Applicant Tristan Warren, an architect who came to the meeting on behalf of the property owner, said he believed the project is exempt from the California Architects Act and that the documents included signatures and electronic seals. Lender Blaney White told the commission the project’s loan term is limited and that further delay would threaten the borrower’s finances. Warren said the applicant initially declined a long continuance but later agreed to a continuance to Sept. 4 after further discussion of the legal uncertainty and scheduling options.

Commissioner Swift moved to continue the item to Sept. 4; another commissioner seconded the motion. The commission conducted a roll call and recorded unanimous support for the continuance. Commissioners and staff said they intend to work with the town attorney and the applicant before the Sept. 4 hearing to resolve whether the owner‑builder exemption applies to this application, whether revised title blocks or signatures would address the concern, and whether any conditions should be attached to a future approval.

Key legal question: staff and several commissioners cited the California Architects Act and language drawn from the California Business and Professions Code about owner‑builder exceptions and licensing requirements for contractors and architects. Staff noted that an owner‑builder exemption typically applies to a natural person and that the statute and its limits require legal interpretation to determine whether an LLC can rely on that exemption in this circumstance.

Next steps: the commission continued the item to a special meeting on Sept. 4 (a date staff said is available) and asked planning staff and the town attorney to advise the commission and the applicant about what changes, if any, would resolve the discrepancy (for example, clarify who signed or prepared the cover sheet and drawings).