Lakeway zoning panel finds no view-blocking issue for 225 Corinthian, approves rebuild height

The Lakeway Zoning and Planning Commission on Wednesday determined that “view blocking” is not an issue for a proposed home at 225 Corinthian and permitted the applicant to build to the height requested, approving the determination by a 5-0 vote.

The commission heard a staff report from Aaron Carr and testimony from the applicant’s architect before taking public comment. Neighbors said the rebuilt house — proposed after the prior home burned down — could block long-standing views from nearby homes, while the architect said the new roofline would be only about 2 feet 8 inches higher than the earlier structure.

The property owner is seeking to rebuild after a fire; staff described the item as a view-blocking determination for a new home to replace an earlier house that had burned. The applicant asked to build to a point 20 feet above the highest natural grade, and staff said the new house would be set slightly closer to the lake than the previous structure. Aaron Carr told the commission the panel’s role was to decide whether view blocking is an issue for the property.

Neighbors who spoke said the erected ridge pole used to represent the proposed peak looked higher than the roughly 2 feet 8 inches the architect estimated. Linda Nesmith, who lives at 220 Corinthian, submitted photos and email correspondence questioning the accuracy of the ridge pole and said the pole “is completely above the burned out portion of the magnolia tree” and that it appears higher than residents were told. Tyler West, 218 Corinthian, said the proposed house would impact multiple rooms and decks at his home and opposed the construction as presented.

Two neighbors spoke in favor of allowing the rebuild. Ashley Bridal, 231 Corinthian, said she attended the fire and supports the owners’ efforts to rebuild; she called the tree coverage “a mute issue” and said the lot’s steepness limits sight lines.

The applicant’s architect (identified in the meeting as Jean) told commissioners that, based on an estimate without original drawings, the new roof ridge would be about 2 feet 8 inches higher than the old structure and that the owner preferred to keep the main slab elevation where the original slab was located. The architect also said the house was being moved back on the lot about 20 feet, which she said should be beneficial to the site from a perspective view.

Commissioners toured or viewed the site prior to the vote, and several said photos can be misleading depending on angle. Commissioner Hall said a site visit showed significant elevation change between lake level and the houses above and believed the magnolia tree obstructs more than any house likely would. Commissioner Hogg and others raised concerns about whether the ridge pole was accurately placed and how much of the pole represented the new structure’s highest point.

Commissioner LeBlanc moved that "view blocking is not an issue and that the applicant is permitted to build to the height requested." The motion carried on a voice vote with five ayes and no nays.

The commission’s determination allows the applicant to proceed to the next steps of permitting; commissioners noted that if the commission had found a view-blocking issue the house could have been limited to the average height of the houses on either side, determined by survey.