Council remands 21 Maravista design review appeal to DRB and asks staff to facilitate neighbor meeting on deck location

The Tiburon Town Council remanded to the Design Review Board (DRB) an appeal of the DRB’s unconditional approval for a new single‑family residence at 21 Maravista Court, and directed staff to facilitate a meeting among the property owners or their representatives to seek a negotiated resolution before the DRB reconvenes.

Staff presentation: Dina, the town’s director of community development, summarized the project and the DRB’s decision. She said the applicant proposes to demolish a single‑story house on an 8,054‑square‑foot lot in an R‑1 district and build an approximately 2,400‑square‑foot home with a 483‑square‑foot garage. Dina told council the project complies with development standards (floor‑area ratio, lot coverage, height) and that the DRB unanimously approved a conditional resolution that required additional landscaping along the shared side yard; the appeal was filed by neighbors at 25 Maravista.

Appellants’ case: Arif and Kristen Fazal, the owners at 25 Maravista, told the council their concern is the applicant’s plan to shift a front deck roughly 20 feet closer to their property and to raise that deck above the garage. Arif Fazal said the neighborhood pattern places front outdoor living spaces separated by driveways and other structural buffers; he argued the proposed deck would eliminate the buffer between his property and 21 Maravista, increasing noise and allowing views into their bedrooms and bathrooms. “They have to move it over 20 feet abutting our property, which will create inconsistencies in the neighborhood,” Fazal said.

Applicant response: Architect Mohammed Sadria said the project was redesigned through multiple revisions to reduce massing, remove some decks and eliminate several windows on the side facing the neighbors. He noted the new home as proposed stays within the zoning limits and that the proposed deck elevation is about four feet higher than the driveway but not four feet higher than the existing front deck. He also offered to provide landscaping screening and noted that the neighbor’s existing windows already look down toward the applicant’s property.

Public comment: Neighbors across the street and adjacent to the site described loss of privacy and amplified visibility and noise given the slope differences. Richard Seidman (14 Maravista) and Larry Pisani spoke in support of the appellants, saying the proposed elevation changes and new building height would produce intrusive overlooking and a loss of privacy for downhill properties.

Council action: Councilmembers debated whether the DRB had a complete record, whether DRB members had sufficient site review, and whether additional outreach between the parties could produce a negotiated outcome. Citing the need for a specific direction when remanding, council directed staff to arrange a facilitated meeting among the owners or their representatives and remanded the matter to the DRB with instruction to specifically re‑examine the proposed front deck location and related privacy/noise mitigations. The motion to remand passed on a roll call vote (Yes: Nick Farr, Council member Ryan, Mayor Thayer; No: Vice Mayor Wellner; Council member Fredericks absent). Under town code a remand requires the council to describe outstanding issues; the council recorded the deck location, privacy and noise/neighbor outreach as the focal points for DRB reconsideration.

Outcome and next steps: The DRB will receive the remand and the council’s direction, will reevaluate the design with the new material and may conduct additional site visits. Staff will facilitate a meeting between the parties in advance of the DRB hearing. If the DRB issues a new resolution, its decision will again be appealable to council.