Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Design Review Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tiburon design board denies neighbor appeal over 23 Mercury Avenue trellis, 3-1
Summary
The Design Review Board denied an appeal of a staff approval for a trellis attached to an accessory dwelling unit at 23 Mercury Ave., rejecting neighbors’ requests to relocate or shorten the structure while urging post‑approval neighborly mitigation.
The Tiburon Design Review Board voted 3-1 to deny an appeal of a staff decision approving a trellis at 23 Mercury Avenue, upholding staff’s finding that the structure met applicable design review standards.
The appeal was filed by neighbors Sean Hussey and Lauren Cromwell of 25 Mercury Avenue, who said the nearly 12-foot trellis creates privacy, visual character and winter sunlight impacts for their home. The board majority concluded staff had authority to approve the trellis and that the application met the standards applied in a minor design review.
The board’s decision followed presentations by staff planner Samantha Bonifencio, the appellants and the project architect. Hussey told the board the trellis “looks directly into our backyard and main living spaces” and said the structure’s materials and height made it more prominent than the prior trellis. He asked that the trellis be moved to the west side of the yard or pulled back from the hill to reduce visibility.
Architect Ted Beno, representing the property owner, said the ADU and deck were exempt from design review under current ADU rules and that the trellis, which “is actually simply a shade structure, not a second story, and, therefore, it really has no impact on privacy,” was sited and dimensioned to meet zoning setbacks. Beno told the board he had visited the site and the new trellis is roughly a foot taller than the previous structure but set farther from the neighbor in plan.
A member of the public, John McLeod of 21 Mercury Avenue, told the board the new trellis “feels like it’s very close to the edge of the hill compared to the old trellis” and urged that it be moved back from the hillside.
Board member Holscher, who inspected the appellant’s view and reviewed the record, said the appellant’s privacy concern was “the only one that I find compelling that gives me pause,” but ultimately joined the majority in denying the appeal while urging the parties to seek neighborly mitigation such as landscaping.
Vice Chair Rosner voted against denying the appeal. The motion to deny the appeal carried 3-1 with one board member absent.
The board did not impose a redesign condition but several members urged the applicant to work with the neighbors on landscaping or modest design adjustments to reduce visibility and privacy impact.
By the board’s vote, the trellis approval stands as issued by staff; construction activity shown in the record was already underway at the ADU and deck.
The board moved on to other agenda items after the vote.
