The council was unanimous in its decision to postpone any further vote or discussion on the proposed measures until August.
As recently reported by Community Impact Newspaper, this discussion comes on the heels of a monthslong battle with local day care owner Bianca King.
King operates a state-registered at-home day care out of her Lakeway home. She opened her business in January 2021. Sometime after, according to court documents, the city received a complaint about King’s business from local golfers, who said hearing and seeing children play in King’s private backyard interferes with their golf game.
“We have seen this document multiple times,” Lakeway Assistant City Manager Joseph Molis said, referring to the home occupation ordinance. “It’s been a work in progress as far as getting to a lot of the meat of the matter.”
King said she does not want to continue to file suit against the city.
“Lakeway would be stifling the availability of home day cares for families who want them,” she said. “No other cities in Travis County restrict home child care owners or their residents to three children. Listed family homes are never inspected, and they are unregulated. As a registered family home, I'm inspected and will continue to be as I undergo yearly continuing childhood education licensing.”
At the request of council members, a new section has been added for potential permits for at-home day care operations.
According to the new criteria, anyone applying for a special permit to run a functioning day care in their home must comply with all other home ordinance codes, limit the number of children unrelated to the caregiver to three and restrict any parking for the day care to the front of the occupant’s home.
“Whatever we do for this zoning ordinance needs to work for the entire city,” Lakeway Mayor Thomas Kilgore said. “And not just for a single property.”
He added the council would make a decision based on what was best for the city and not worry about ongoing litigation.
King’s lawyer, Jared McClain from the Institute for Justice, said he understood council members have a difficult job and that they are trying to weigh competing interests. However, they need to keep the Texas Constitution in mind, he said.
“Part of the result of that compromise is you're sort of picking a number that is going to leave the most people happy,” McClain said. “And making zoning decisions that are going to make the most people happy is not a compelling government interest.”
Several of the parents who have children attending King’s Rainbows Edge Childcare Center also spoke in support of King.
Debra Maki, a grandmother to one of the children, said the parents choose that day care because of the individualized attention their child receives.
“I also have to make a point that I live next to an airport,” she said. “The airport is very noisy. And the golfers are right next to the airport ... where it’s noisy.”
She also said she hoped the council would “see it in their heart to OK the day care.”
Not everyone is on board with the day care, however.
Beverly Banfield, a neighbor of King, said she wants to know where the line is with a “home business.”
“This could devalue our properties, and it’s a business. We are supposed to have a residential area and not a business area,” Banfield said.
Council Member Kelly Brynteson said she is concerned because it is a residential neighborhood.
“Somebody moved there to live in a residential neighborhood, not to live next to a business,” she said.
Council Member Louis Mastrangelo said he understands that having a day care in the area could decrease property values.
“But, at the same time, ... I don’t see six as a huge problem," he said. "I have neighbors that have 10-15 kids. I just don’t see the noise difference for six more children inside her home as a problem.”
Ultimately, council decided to defer any decisions regarding special permits for at-home child care to Aug. 1 as this would allow the city attorney time to look over changes.
Molis also went through key changes requested during the last council meeting.
One of the changes requested was the language surrounding an independent contractor who was not an occupant of the home and who could work with the primary caregiver.
The language was changed to say participation in home occupation is limited to occupants of the dwelling unit, Molis said. There is additional language about allowing a substitute in case the primary occupant is gone, but because this was geared more toward home day care; that section has been shifted to the home day care subsection.
The subsection for home day care also specifies an independent contractor who is not an occupant may occasionally be present if they are provided off-street parking.
From the last meeting, there was also a clarification about prohibitions on outside storage and display. King raised this concern after stating she could not reasonably comply with the ordinance as it did not even allow her to have children’s toys and a playscape in her backyard.
The language has been revised to say it is acceptable for the storage or display of something that is typically visible in a residential area.
