Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spring Valley advisory board approves rear-setback reduction for Sunset Pine house
Summary
The Spring Valley Town Advisory Board voted Jan. 28 to recommend approval of a waiver (WS240578) to reduce the rear setback for an existing single-family residence on Sunset Pine Street, subject to staff conditions; building code review remains separate.
The Spring Valley Town Advisory Board voted Jan. 28, 2025, to recommend approval of a waiver of development standards (WS240578) to reduce the rear setback for an existing single-family residence on Sunset Pine Street in Spring Valley.
The recommendation, made at the board's Jan. 28 meeting, applies to a home on a 0.08-acre lot on the west side of Sunset Pine Street roughly 35 feet north of Violet Sunset Avenue. The board approved the item as presented with the standard staff-recommended conditions.
The applicant's representative, Albert Bagdasarian, said he had contacted the homeowners association and was told the HOA "don't have jurisdiction over any of the homes in regards to structures, so they couldn't give us a response on that." A board member noted that second-story decks are common in the neighborhood and described the request as primarily a setback issue rather than a change in neighborhood character.
Staff reminded the board that any advisory recommendation would next go to the planning commission and possibly the Clark County Board of County Commissioners, and that separate building-code reviews remain required. A staff speaker told the board that building inspection would still evaluate fire separation and other building-code standards, noting, "They do. They have fire separation standards, which are separate from title 30, regulations." Board members recorded awareness that county building officials could still deny permits even if the advisory recommendation proceeds.
The board moved to approve the waiver "as presented with the staff approved conditions" and the motion passed on a voice vote; no roll-call tally was given in the meeting record. The board chair emphasized that the advisory board's action is a recommendation and that applicants should expect subsequent review by the planning and building-permit processes.
The advisory board's recommendation will be forwarded to the planning commission and/or the Board of County Commissioners for final action; the applicant must still meet applicable building-code requirements before construction or alterations proceed.
