New Lake Austin rules make waves

A shoreline property setback of 25 feet to 75 feet exists in LA zoning but not in other zoning categories, Herrington said. The setback limits what can be developed close to the shoreline, he said.

"On a case-by-case basis, in the past, folks would [request and] be granted a site-specific zoning [that was less restrictive than LA zoning]," he said. "That created an inconsistency among neighbor[s] and their environmental compliance."

Herrington said it was possible to have a tract zoned LA, next to one zoned SF and then a parcel zoned LA again—in a row.

"With the Lake Austin overlay district, we've at least put a stop to upzoning [used] to get out of environmental protections," he said.

Herrington said the new overlay district only applies to properties that are currently zoned LA, development reserved or rural residential. If a property is zoned anything other than LA, DR or RR—such as SF—the overlay has no effect, he said. Most of the shoreline properties are zoned LA, he said.

If an existing home is not in compliance with the district, it is allowed until the homeowner wants to expand the residence's footprint, Herrington said. Then the property must be brought into compliance with the new regulations, he said.

A homeowner may petition the city's board of adjustment for a variance if a hardship in complying with the new requirements exists, Herrington said.

Dock regulations

The June 26 creation of the overlay district incorporated proposals made by the Lake Austin Task Force, a 17-member commission created in 2012. The group, led by Chairwoman Linda Guerrero, drafted recommendations for boat dock and shoreline development regulations.

The overlay district also focused on curtailing illegal shoreline development, particularly dock construction and modification, said Charles Lesniak, program manager for the Austin Watershed Protection and Development Review Department.

The new rules relieve homeowners of their requirement to produce a permit to show a pre-1984 dock was legally built and has not been modified, he said. However, pre-1984 dock owners must still show proof that their dock existed in its current form before 1984 by using surveys, aerial photographs of the site or some other means, he said. If the pre-1984 dock was modified without a permit and the owner wants to remodel it, he or she must update the dock to comply with the current standards, he said. The dock owner would not lose his or her dock—just the illegal portion of it, he said.

City staff can produce dock permits dating back to 1984 but possibly not before that year, Lesniak said.

Eric Moreland, a member of the LATF, said the grandfathering regulation—requiring a homeowner to prove a pre-1984 dock was not modified in the years since it was built—is arduous. He said a recent buyer must look back 30, 40 or 50 years to see if his or her dock has been modified.

Other changes include prohibiting enclosed structures on a boat dock, Lesniak said.

Lake Austin Zoning Glossary

A zoning district establishes regulations governing the use and development on a tract.

• DR, Development Reserve: intended for a temporary or non specific use
• LA, Lake Austin Residence: intended to protect benefits of Lake Austin; restricts development
• RR, Rural Residential: intended for low density residential use; for lots more than 1 acre
• SF, Single Family: intended for residential use

City staff says no trams permitted

Waterfront trams are not permitted in developments along the Lake Austin shoreline, said Charles Lesniak, program manager for the Austin Watershed Protection and Development Review Department, during the June 26 city council meeting.

He said current code only allows pedestrian access along the waterway. Staff interpreted the ordinance to include only non-mechanized access—a staircase or switchbacks that diagonally traverse a hillside shore property, he said.

Compared with a tram, a set of stairs or switchbacks attached to a cliff face would not create erosion, Lesniak said.

Councilman Mike Martinez said he was concerned about the prohibition of trams for shoreline properties.

"I couldn't envision traversing switchbacks if I'm carrying equipment or trying to get things up or down from the actual water level to the property level," Martinez said.

He asked Lesniak if the shoreline prohibition against trams would apply to the elderly or mobility-impaired.

Lesniak said hardship applicants would be included in the prohibition but could seek a variance for a tram from the city's board of adjustment.