Planning commission recommends denial of countywide "private recreational use" text amendment

The Levy County Planning Commission on April 27 recommended that the Board of County Commissioners deny a proposed countywide text amendment that would add a new "private recreational use" definition to the land development code.

Attorney Walker Bullock, representing property owners David and Gordon Howard, told the commission the amendment would resolve ambiguity in the code and allow nongovernmental recreational facilities—"kayaking, shotgun sports with an express prohibition of any use of lead shot, zipline activities, and other similar recreational uses"—to operate on forestry/rural residential lands. Bullock argued the change would be countywide, promote economic activity without public expenditure and fit the comprehensive plan's policy 3.7 on resource‑related uses.

Planning staff summarized the request and the application packet, and initially recommended incorporating a private‑recreation definition in section 50‑1 and permitting the use where public recreational uses are already allowed. Commissioners pressed the applicant on alternatives such as agritourism and on how the proposal would be enforced. Several commissioners said a countywide permitted use would create interpretive problems and could apply to a large portion of the county.

Public comment was heavily opposed. Neighbors and local residents raised concerns about noise from gunshot sports; Diane Gart cited decibel differences and warned that gunfire could create a nuisance and endanger animals and residents with PTSD. Others said the rural stretch of County Road 326 lacks capacity for commercial traffic, noted potential safety conflicts on the Waukesasa/Woksassa waterway, and urged that site‑specific proposals be reviewed through a special‑exception process rather than by changing definitions across the county.

Commissioner (speaker 6) moved to recommend denial of TA‑26‑01 to the Board of County Commissioners. After discussion acknowledging that private recreational operations could have value when handled on a case‑by‑case basis, the commission recorded a unanimous decision opposing approval of the countywide permitted‑use approach and recommended denial. The commission noted the idea of private recreation could warrant further consideration through site‑specific review or as part of the comprehensive plan and LDR updates rather than a broad, permissive countywide change.

The commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.