The Spring Valley Town Board on Aug. 26 approved a waiver of development standards to increase the height of a rear perimeter wall to 6.5 feet at a single‑family property on Darby Avenue and forwarded the case to the county planning commission for final action.

The request matters because planning and zoning approvals for residential development in the RS‑20 zone and the Neighborhood Protection (RNP) overlay are subject to county review; the board’s approval allows the applicants to pursue the next step before the Clark County planning body.

Dawn Davis, the applicant, said the addition was built after a neighboring property's large dog repeatedly jumped the original wall and entered her yard. “What we're asking for is a 6 and a half foot wall,” Davis said, adding the added material is the same brown composite lumber used elsewhere on the property. She told the board she requested only a one‑half foot increase on the section of wall adjacent to the problem area and that the finished appearance was intended to match neighboring perimeter walls.

Davis also pointed out discrepancies between the staff packet posted online and the materials she provided: some staff notes listed the height inconsistently and described the toppers as a different material and color. She said the rear neighbor’s grade is about 2½ feet higher than her property; the neighbor’s wall on their side measures about 4½ feet with a 2‑foot fence on top, which together align with the 6½‑foot measurement Davis described.

A nearby resident, Harold Blunk, who previously owned the house behind the applicants, told the board he contributed to rebuilding part of that shared wall in the past and said he believed some on‑site measurements could differ from the applicants’ figures. “I paid $35,000 to have half of that wall rebuilt,” Blunk said, and added he had no objection to the applicants’ request to increase height by about a foot.

Board members asked for clarifications on the exact measurement points and recommended the applicants obtain a written letter of support from the adjacent side‑yard neighbor before the planning commission hearing. The chair moved to approve the waiver and “incorporate any staff recommendations,” and the motion carried with all members present voting yes. Because the board had noted at roll call that only three members were present, the recorded vote reflected the three members in attendance.

The board and staff said the applicant’s packet — including the photographs and the updated justification letter — will be included in the materials taken to the planning commission meeting; staff advised the applicants to make the measurement basis clear (ground level used for each side) and to bring a neighbor support letter to the planning commission (PCC) meeting scheduled in September.

What happens next: the approval at this meeting is the board’s advisory/forwarding action; final approval for the variance must come from the county planning body in the normal review process. The board asked that the applicants bring corrected, specific measurements and a neighbor support letter to the planning commission packet.

Less critical details: the applicants said they chose composite lumber rather than reconstructing a cinder‑block wall because it was less intrusive to the shared wall and less costly. The board encouraged applicants to include a clear, written explanation of the measurement baseline (their ground level vs. the neighbor’s) when they submit materials to the planning commission.