Upson County commission recommends denial of proposed Fire Tower Road veterinary clinic and related variance

At its January 2026 meeting the Upson County Planning and Accounting Commission voted to recommend denial of a special exception for a proposed veterinary hospital on Fire Tower Road and separately denied the related variance request, following a staff presentation and more than two hours of public comment.

The commission's staff report said the AR (agricultural-residential) district allows "hospitals" only where three conditions are met, including that the lot front on an arterial street; staff concluded the parcel does not meet that requirement and recommended denial of the variance. As the zoning administrator summarized, "Easement is not recognized as legal access. It has to be fee simple, your parcel touches either a private road or a public road, and that's in your subdivision ordinance." The staff memo and presentation cited Section 504(b)(13) for hospital uses in AR and the county's subdivision standards.

Applicant Dan Brew told the commission the clinic would serve both large and small animals and addressed community need, urging discretion and a short timeline to secure financing or site changes. "Give me 6 months," Brew said, asking the commission to allow a conditional path forward. His wife, Dana Brew, emphasized her clinical qualifications: "I did go to school specifically to do large animal medicine." Dozens of residents, farmers and rescue volunteers spoke in favor of the proposal, saying long travel times to neighboring counties and shortage-area designations make local large-animal care a county priority.

Opponents focused on traffic and site suitability. Neighbor Adrian Chapman said, "I just don't think Fire Tower Road is the right place for it," citing sight-distance and trailer-traffic concerns near a crest and narrow stretches of the road. Commissioners said they were sympathetic to the community need but constrained to apply the ordinance language and the variance standard, which requires a showing of "extreme hardship." One commissioner summarized the dilemma: the need is apparent, "but it's very hard for me to say yes to something that the ordinance is saying no to."

On the special exception the commission voted to recommend denial; that recommendation will be forwarded to the Upson County Board of Commissioners. Separately, the planning commission denied the variance. Staff advised the commission that the variance process stops with the planning commission under county procedure and noted possible appeal paths to county legal staff.

The record shows the staff analysis and public testimony centered on three documents and references included in the meeting packet: the county zoning ordinance provisions cited by staff, the county subdivision ordinance, and the Upson County Land Use Plan referenced in the ordinance language. The applicant argued that the arterial-road requirement is the product of drafting and comprehensive-plan cross-references that were not in place when the ordinance language was copied into county code; staff and several commissioners said statutory interpretation and the variance standard constrained their vote.

Next steps: the special-exception recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for final action; the variance denial stands at the planning commission level unless appealed under county rules.