Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pike County denies special‑use permit for 10‑dome glamping campground after neighbor opposition
Summary
The Pike County Board of Commissioners voted Oct. 28 to deny a special‑use permit for a 10‑dome glamping campground on Starks Road, citing neighbors’ concerns about noise, fire risk, septic/well impacts and county capacity to enforce conditions.
The Pike County Board of Commissioners on Oct. 28 denied a special‑use permit request to convert 29.9 acres at the end of Starks Road into a campground with up to 10 glamping domes.
Planning staff had recommended denial, saying the proposed use could have adverse effects on adjoining properties; the county’s Planning & Zoning Board had recommended approval with eight conditions including a two‑week stay limit, 50‑foot buffers, a 100‑foot setback from property lines, and septic and well permits.
Applicant and owner Rodriguez Corbin told the board he would adhere to the conditions and described the project as a modest, low‑impact use that could bring visitors to Pike County.
"I am on board with all the rules and regulations — I don't mind working hand in hand with whoever to make sure everything's addressed," Rodriguez Corbin said during the public hearing.
Several nearby landowners opposed the request. Neighbors raised concerns about increased traffic, potential noise and large fires associated with camping, the adequacy of septic and water systems for visitors, and difficulties in enforcing quiet hours and other conditions. Colin Bryant, who said his family owns much of the bordering land, said he supported his son's plan but acknowledged neighbors’ worries.
After hearing from supporters and a substantial number of neighbors in opposition, a motion was made and seconded to deny the permit. The board approved the denial by a show‑of‑hands vote with no recorded opposition.
What the denial means: The special‑use permit will not move forward. The applicant may revise and resubmit or seek alternative uses consistent with the property's AR zoning. Commissioners noted concerns that county code enforcement and permitting capacity would be tested by such a development in that location.
Why it matters: The decision reflects tension between small‑scale rural entrepreneurship and neighborhood expectations in low‑density areas. Commissioners explicitly cited enforcement capacity and proximity to residences as deciding factors.
