Washoe County Board of Adjustment approves variance to keep 15 ft wildlife wall at 515 Rhodes Road

The Washoe County Board of Adjustment on Feb. 5, 2026, voted to approve a variance allowing an existing 15-foot-8-inch wall at 515 Rhodes Road to exceed the county's 6-foot maximum for fences and walls. The motion to approve was made by Rob Pierce and seconded by Kathy Julian; the board adopted the measure by voice vote after a public hearing and deliberation.

Planning staff, represented by planner Jolene Bertetto, told the board the wall is 95 feet long, was constructed about eight years ago and that staff could not make required variance findings A and C under the Washoe County development code. "We are recommending denial of the variance application," Bertetto said during her presentation, citing code criteria drawn from the Nevada Revised Statutes and the county development code.

The applicants' attorney, Garrett Gordon, and property owner Curtis Coulter said the wall should be treated as a wildlife-habitat structure rather than a conventional fence. Gordon described it as a "wildlife preservation wall" built after the removal of a large, long-standing cottonwood that the applicants say was a significant migratory-bird habitat. Coulter said the original tree was removed after storm damage and that the structure, with mounted birdhouses and planted trees, was intended to mitigate that loss. "We didn't consider it a fence," Coulter said, explaining the habitat and design intent.

Public comment at the hearing split between neighbors who supported the Coulters' habitat work and an adjacent property owner who raised permit and enforcement concerns. Rick Blake, a nearby resident who appeared in chambers, praised the structure as beneficial to local birds and said it preserved the food chain. By contrast, James Grimes, who spoke remotely and owns property adjacent to the Coulters, said he had been limited to a 6-foot fence when he applied for permits and accused the applicants of building without permits and altering drainage. "The Coulters never applied for a permit and they built 15 and a half feet high," Grimes said.

Board members questioned staff and the applicants about code definitions, setbacks and whether the feature qualifies as a "fence," "wall" or a "structure." County staff and counsel explained the code's definitions and noted a director's modification exists for some grading exceptions but not for wall-height adjustments. Staff told the board 33 property owners were notified and the county received eight public comments in support, including a letter from the immediate neighbor.

During deliberations, some members expressed concern about creating a precedent that could allow other property owners to circumvent height limits, while others said the evidence before them showed exceptional circumstances and community support. Commissioner Peter Gishon said he had driven by the property for years and had not noticed the wall until recently and that, on balance, he could make the findings required for a variance. Ultimately, the board concluded it could make the requisite findings under Washoe County Development Code section 110.8040.25 and approved the variance by voice vote.

The board did not record a roll-call tally in the transcript; the action was announced as passed by voice vote. Staff noted that decisions of the Board of Adjustment are appealable to the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners within 10 calendar days by filing with the planning secretary. The meeting adjourned at 2:28 p.m.

Details from the hearing: the subject wall is described in the record as 15 feet 8 inches tall and roughly 95 feet long; the parcel is slightly over 5 acres and is in the South Valley planning area. Staff recommended denial because it could not make two of the required findings; the applicant argued removal of a very large cottonwood and subsequent mitigation efforts created an extraordinary circumstance supporting the variance. The board approved the variance.