Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Veterinary Clinic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Upson County commissioners deny appeal of planning commission's rejection of proposed veterinary clinic on Fire Tower Road
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing with dozens of residents testifying for and against a proposed large/small-animal veterinary clinic, the board found the planning commission followed the county ordinance and voted to deny the applicant's variance appeal; a related special-exception route was dismissed as moot.
The Upson County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 10 denied an appeal of the planning commission's decision that refused a variance for a proposed veterinary clinic on Fire Tower Road, concluding the planning commission applied the county ordinance correctly.
The hearing drew more than 40 public commenters. Supporters said the county lacks adequate large-animal veterinary care, urging commissioners to overturn the denial so farmers and pet owners could access emergency and routine services closer to home. "This decision overlooks strong community support and risks eroding the trust voters place in you to represent our voices and priorities," said Lisa Pierce, who gave her address and urged the board to "grant the variance." Several farmers described long trips to distant clinics and told the board local access would prevent animal suffering and economic loss.
Opponents who live on or near Fire Tower Road told commissioners the site would increase heavy-trailer traffic on a narrow, winding road and said the ordinance's arterial-road requirement exists to protect neighbors and public safety. "Words have meaning. Code has meaning," said resident Adrian Chapman, who urged the board to preserve the distinction between a special exception and a rezoning.
County attorney Heath English advised the board the legal question on appeal is limited: the board must decide whether the planning commission followed the county ordinance, not whether the county needs another clinic. "Their job here tonight is not to listen to the facts and circumstances," English said, summarizing the narrow standard of review.
After discussion, a motion to deny the appeal "based on staff and legal recommendation" passed on roll call; commissioners also moved to dismiss the special-exception route as moot because the variance denial was dispositive. Commissioners who voted in favor recorded "yes" on the roll calls during the meeting.
Several commissioners urged the county to consider ordinance changes in the future so a path exists for veterinary services. Commissioners and legal staff noted the ordinance dates to 1994 and that updating definitions or mapping arterial roads could be pursued as a separate process.
The denial leaves the applicant the option of seeking a judicial appeal in superior court or pursuing a change to county code through the normal legislative process. The board then moved on to other agenda items.
