Spring Valley — The Spring Valley Town Advisory Board on July 29 denied requests from the Cowell Family Trust for waivers of development standards tied to a proposed four‑lot subdivision, including permission for a 15‑foot retaining wall, increased fill height and a small reduction in gross lot area.

The board’s denial came after the applicant’s representative described site constraints — an existing fill condition, proximity to a Nevada Energy primary power line, and drainage requirements that the representative said require raising the lot by 2 feet — and after residents and board members pressed for clearer information about impacts on adjacent property owners.

The applicant’s representative, Joey DeBlanco, said the lot currently “sits 10 feet higher than everything else around it” and that engineering and drainage work produced a design that required a “15 foot high retaining wall.” He told the board the project would extend sewer to the site, add curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights on Colley Avenue, and that one lot in the approved subdivision is about 1,000 square feet short of the 20,000 square‑foot minimum the code requires.

Board members and members of the public questioned how the taller wall would appear from neighboring yards and whether a tiered wall approach recommended by staff would undermine the proposed house foundation. One resident asked what a property owner to the north would see; DeBlanco said the north neighbor would view both the 15‑foot retaining portion and an additional 6‑foot block wall above it. The representative also said the lot condition included a soil fissure and a berm, and that a tiered solution would require landscape buffers that could encroach into the structure’s influence zone.

During the hearing a resident, Amy (last name provided at the meeting as Rio), asked about timing and the style of the homes; DeBlanco estimated construction could start by the end of the year or mid‑next year and that building could take roughly two years. He said the subdivision had previously been approved and that the current request arose from design‑phase changes.

After discussion, a board member moved to deny the waivers to give the applicant more time to prepare fuller answers for the planning commission; the motion carried. The board advised the applicant to provide “more concrete answers” to the planning commission about the wall design, foundation impacts and contact with adjacent property owners.

Earlier in the hearing staff confirmed the drainage study has been approved and that the applicant is in the improvement plan stage, but board members said the packet lacked adequate detail on how a taller single retaining wall would affect foundations and neighboring yards. The applicant said the fill and wall height result from both the need to meet drainage grades and to provide accessible design for the applicant’s intended residents.

The denial means the applicant must return with revised materials or further justification before the advisory board will recommend approval to the Clark County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The board did not adopt alternative conditions at the meeting; it explicitly declined the waivers.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article are drawn from statements on the record at the July 29 meeting.

Ending: The applicant may revise the design and return to the advisory board or proceed to the planning commission with additional materials; the advisory board’s action is advisory to the county planning commission and Board of County Commissioners.