Council denies administrative variance appeal for 104 Lanyard Bend after neighbor opposition

Peachtree City Council · November 21, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a quasi‑judicial hearing with neighbor testimony, the council denied an appeal to allow an additional 7.5‑foot encroachment for a nonconforming deck at 104 Lanyard Bend, citing long‑standing complaints and public opposition.

Peachtree City Council on Nov. 25 denied an administrative variance appeal for a deck encroachment at 104 Lanyard Bend after neighbors testified the structure had been built without permit and violated setback rules for years.

Applicant Mister Thompson said he bought the dilapidated property in February 2024 and sought to rebuild an existing sunroom/deck footprint. He described plans to replace the flat roof with a pitched roof and to modernize the house. Thompson said permitting and improvement intentions were genuine and that the preexisting structure had been in place for decades.

Opponents, including Cecilia Oceda and Kim Miller from Fishers Bank, said the deck was never legal and had violated setbacks since at least 2002. Oceda argued the structure could not be grandfathered because it had lacked a permit when built and presented a petition and neighborhood objections.

Council discussed historical aerial/satellite imagery, code‑enforcement memos and administrative‑variance committee work. Some council members noted the deck appears visible in imagery dating to the early 2000s but raised concerns about the size of the requested encroachment and its effect on the neighbor’s privacy. After lengthy deliberation the council voted to deny the appeal; the decision means the applicant’s request for the additional 7.5 feet of encroachment was not granted.

Council noted the applicant may seek other remedies (including rebuilding to existing lawful dimensions, applying for fence variances to mitigate privacy concerns or appealing to superior court), and staff explained the applicant could reapply after a waiting period if appropriate.