Residents, rescue groups press Upson County over planning commission denial of veterinary clinic
Loading...
Summary
Residents, rescue organizations and the clinic applicant told the Board of Commissioners the planning commission showed bias and procedural errors when it denied a variance for a proposed veterinary hospital; the applicant says the county has been sued and urged the commissioners to act.
Dozens of residents and animal-rescue volunteers urged the Upson County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 13 to review a planning commission decision that denied a variance for a proposed veterinary hospital on Fat Tire Road.
Public commenters described a sustained local shortage of veterinary care after several area veterinarians retired and said the county’s appointed planning board handled the hearing unfairly. "They just want a chance," Chuck Thompson said in support of the applicants. Several speakers said the county humane organization and volunteers now pay gas and out-of-county vet bills to care for animals housed in the county shelter.
The applicant, who identified herself as Dana Bruce, said she and her supporters were outraged by the planning commission’s conduct and its denial of the special exception for the AR-zoned property. Bruce said a lawsuit was filed in Upson County Superior Court on Jan. 8 challenging the commission’s procedures and decision and provided the board with a copy of the filing. "It was evident that there was blatant disrespect" at the earlier hearing, she said.
Speakers who gave testimony included Neil Andrews, who told commissioners that roughly 31 residents had testified in favor of the variance at the planning meeting and accused the board chair of being "clearly biased and disrespectful." Liz Price, president of the county humane society, and several rescue volunteers described frequent, costly trips to Griffin, Barnesville and other counties to obtain veterinary care and urged local access to reduce costs and animal suffering.
Speakers repeatedly criticized the planning commission for procedural errors, citing questions about application of local zoning rules and inconsistent treatment of previous applicants. The complaints included specific references to what supporters said were departures from Robert’s Rules and county procedure; several commenters said the planning commission had favored another applicant in a prior case and had therefore set an inconsistent precedent.
The commissioner meeting audio and speakers' statements show no formal response from the board to the allegations during public comment. Commissioners listened to the testimony and then proceeded with the rest of the agenda, including routine approvals and appointments.
What happens next: the applicant told commissioners a court filing is already on record, and she urged the board to address planning commission conduct. The board did not take additional action on the planning commission at the Jan. 13 business session; commissioners may address the matter at a future meeting or in separate staffing and oversight processes.
