Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies variance to let a mostly opaque frontage fence; height variance fails
Summary
After a public hearing on a corner-lot request to install a 6-foot privacy fence with less-than-50%-visibility frontage material, the council split votes: the motion to permit 6-foot fencing in certain front-facing pieces failed (2–3), and the council voted to deny the opacity variance (3–2).
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Peachtree City Council considered a homeowner’s request to allow a 6-foot privacy fence and to permit solid (more than 50% opaque) material along certain frontages of a corner lot. Planning staff explained the ordinance requires front-yard/frontage fence components be no more than 4 feet high and at least 50% visually open as viewed from the street for safety and sight-line reasons.
Applicant Alex Wilhelm described moving to Peachtree City with his young children and requested the 6-foot privacy fence for child safety, privacy and to mitigate traffic and visibility from passersby. “A 6 foot privacy fence provides a much safer, more secure barrier for both our children and then other neighborhood children as well,” he said.
Council members debated public-safety sight-triangle and ordinance consistency. One member argued granting the variance would amount to a special privilege and could set a precedent; another urged a compromise that would provide privacy while preserving visibility on front-facing portions. The council split the issues: a motion to allow certain 6-foot sections while keeping the two small front-facing sections at 4 feet failed 2–3, and a separate motion to deny the variance that would permit an opaque frontage fence passed 3–2.
Council members who voted to deny the opacity variance cited safety and sight-line concerns for corner lots; supporters of limited height relief argued the homeowner’s safety and neighborhood privacy were important but that material and location adjustments should protect visibility standards. The decision leaves the ordinance’s 50% visibility requirement intact for the frontage components and denies the applicant’s request for greater opacity.

