Peachtree City homeowners urge council to keep backyard fences after retroactive violation notices
February 13, 2026 | Peachtree City, Fayette County, Georgia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Several homeowners in The Gates neighborhood told Peachtree City Council the city’s recent retroactive notices to relocate backyard fences would create safety and erosion risks and asked the council to put the matter on a future agenda for public consideration.
"We've followed every rule. We paid every fee. We've relied on the city's multiple approvals and inspections for our fence," said Jeremy Santos, a resident at 351 Archway Lane. Santos told the council his home was built with city permitting and inspection in 2017 and that the same fence later served as the required pool safety barrier under a pool permit. He said survey stakes placed at construction remained in place and that moving the fence 4–10 feet toward the green space would lower the effective height above the green belt to roughly 1 foot and increase the risk of children or deer gaining access to the pool.
Other residents who spoke — including Greg Voga (proxy for a neighbor), Robin Boga (343 Archway Lane), Carrie Walton (357 Archway Lane), Blake Raider (345 Archway Lane) and Sean Manuel (353 Archway Lane) — echoed safety and fiscal concerns. Several speakers said the fences have existed for eight to nine years and that their placement aligns with neighborhood contours. Manuel read a letter from Daniel and Maggie Sislow supporting a special exception for safety.
Homeowners described potential technical consequences if the city enforces relocation: major regrading, excavation, loss of erosion controls and the need to remove sod that currently helps hold slopes in place. Santos said the city had spent about $3,200 after issuing the notices and asked the council to schedule an open, agendaed discussion so the issue can be addressed publicly rather than handled retroactively.
Council did not make a substantive decision during public comment. The mayor acknowledged the residents’ concerns and the request to place the matter on a future council agenda.
Council staff and legal processes — including survey verification, easement or lease options, and enforcement of right-of-way encroachments — will determine next steps. Several speakers asked the city to consider an easement or long-term lease option that would let homeowners keep existing fences until a change in land use requires relocation at homeowner expense.
The council did not act on enforcement at the meeting; residents requested a future agenda item for public discussion and resolution.
"We've followed every rule. We paid every fee. We've relied on the city's multiple approvals and inspections for our fence," said Jeremy Santos, a resident at 351 Archway Lane. Santos told the council his home was built with city permitting and inspection in 2017 and that the same fence later served as the required pool safety barrier under a pool permit. He said survey stakes placed at construction remained in place and that moving the fence 4–10 feet toward the green space would lower the effective height above the green belt to roughly 1 foot and increase the risk of children or deer gaining access to the pool.
Other residents who spoke — including Greg Voga (proxy for a neighbor), Robin Boga (343 Archway Lane), Carrie Walton (357 Archway Lane), Blake Raider (345 Archway Lane) and Sean Manuel (353 Archway Lane) — echoed safety and fiscal concerns. Several speakers said the fences have existed for eight to nine years and that their placement aligns with neighborhood contours. Manuel read a letter from Daniel and Maggie Sislow supporting a special exception for safety.
Homeowners described potential technical consequences if the city enforces relocation: major regrading, excavation, loss of erosion controls and the need to remove sod that currently helps hold slopes in place. Santos said the city had spent about $3,200 after issuing the notices and asked the council to schedule an open, agendaed discussion so the issue can be addressed publicly rather than handled retroactively.
Council did not make a substantive decision during public comment. The mayor acknowledged the residents’ concerns and the request to place the matter on a future council agenda.
Council staff and legal processes — including survey verification, easement or lease options, and enforcement of right-of-way encroachments — will determine next steps. Several speakers asked the city to consider an easement or long-term lease option that would let homeowners keep existing fences until a change in land use requires relocation at homeowner expense.
The council did not act on enforcement at the meeting; residents requested a future agenda item for public discussion and resolution.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
