Hendry County commissioners approve special exception for Ladeca 'glamping' site amid neighbor objections

Hendry County commissioners voted to approve a special exception for SE 24-001, known as Ladeca Glamping, allowing an upscale, low‑impact camping operation on a property zoned General Agriculture, after hearing presentation from the applicant’s agent, extensive public comment and a split discussion among commissioners.

The vote authorizes a special-exception use for a glamping operation on the applicant’s property, subject to the conditions recommended by county staff. The board approved the motion to grant the special exception by a 3‑2 roll call vote after an earlier motion to deny failed.

The application was presented by the applicant’s agent, identified in the record as Rock, who described a wooded, phased development planned to preserve trees and limit impacts. Rock said the proposal is “a pipeline of a 15 acre site in Ladica,” and described design measures intended to keep guests on site and limit traffic impacts. Daisy Prieto, who identified herself as one of the property owners, told commissioners the project reflects a long‑held family plan and a wellness business they hope to expand.

During the public hearing, multiple nearby residents urged denial. Concerns raised included increased traffic on rural roads, fire risk and the capacity of the nearest volunteer fire service in Pioneer, potential impacts on property values and agricultural character, enforcement and the effect of overnight visitors on neighbors’ livestock and farm operations. Several speakers noted the property owners live outside the immediate neighborhood and said approving a commercial use there could set a precedent for more commercialization of the area.

Commissioners asked about compatibility with existing residences, water and septic plans, and enforcement mechanisms. Commissioners and staff discussed that the operation is intended to use well water and septic systems; a package treatment plant was mentioned as a possible condition if necessary, but the hearing record does not contain a finalized engineering design. Rock said the project would be phased and that not all 20 proposed sites would be developed at once; the transcript records a maximum of 20 sites and that development would be phased.

There were two formal motions. Commissioner Atkinson moved to deny the special exception, seconded by Commissioner Wills; that motion failed on roll call (those voting in favor of denying the application: Commissioner Wills and Commissioner Atkinson; those voting against the denial and therefore opposed to denying: Commissioner Iglesias, Commissioner Howard and Chairperson Byrd). Commissioner House then moved to approve the special exception “based on the evidence given to us and with the conditions set by staff,” seconded by Commissioner Iglesias; the motion to approve carried on a roll call (Commissioners Iglesias, Howard and Byrd in support; Commissioners Wills and Atkinson opposed). The board recorded that approval was subject to the staff conditions contained in the planning packet.

Staff and commissioners noted the special‑exception approval contains enforcement teeth: if the applicant violates conditions, the county can revoke the approval. Several commissioners said that mechanism is a primary tool to ensure compliance. The record includes multiple public comments asking for tight conditions or denial; the applicant and agent said they have invested in preparing the project and would accept staff conditions.

Commissioners who supported approval said the site could bring tourism dollars and that staff conditions and enforcement offer safeguards. Commissioners opposed raised compatibility and emergency‑service concerns and said the location sits in the middle of a residential/agricultural neighborhood.

The board did not adopt additional conditions on the record beyond those prepared by staff; the approval, as announced, carries the staff’s written conditions. The transcript includes references to monitoring for compliance and the county’s ability to remove the special exception if the operators fail to meet conditions.