Homeowner urges court to stop motorized use of Leisure Branch; court approves survey and keeps road closed pending review

A Morgan County homeowner told the Fiscal Court she and her family have lived “in constant distress” from years of alleged illegal dumping, trespass, shooting and late-night ATV activity near her house, and asked the court to discontinue motorized access to Leisure Branch Road and preserve it for pedestrian use.

“I’ve been forced to combat relentless criminal activity … we had dealt with daily trespassing and property damage, reckless shooting, constant dumping, vandalism, threats, and drug-related activity right outside our home,” said Darcy (last name not specified), identifying herself as a homeowner on Leisure Branch Road. She described bullet casings, destroyed security cameras and environmental damage to riparian areas; she said closing the route to motorized vehicles allowed the area to recover and attracted hikers and horseback riders.

Darcy asked the court to “discontinue Leisure Branch Road from the county road system to allow this road to remain a pedestrian access only,” arguing the cost and repeated flood and ATV damage make rebuilding impractical and unsafe. She said the U.S. Forest Service had told her it does not support motorized use in its parcel of the forest.

Don Todd, who introduced himself as an attorney and said he had discussed the matter with county staff and the homeowner, framed the question as a balance between county interests and individual safety and liberty. Todd told the court the Forest Service confirmed it has no legal off-road trails in that Leisure Branch area and had not received proposals to build motorized trails there.

A county legal adviser and the county judge said the county owns the land at issue and must weigh fiduciary responsibilities to taxpayers before spending funds to rebuild or maintain the roadway. The county attorney advised that while a recorded easement may exist in some places, private parties can pursue circuit court remedies (for example, an easement by necessity), and cautioned that the county must be able to justify spending public money on what could become a road serving a single household.

On procedure, the court voted to authorize a survey of the disputed corridor so staff can document the location of county-owned right-of-way and the private claims; a motion to do the survey was seconded and carried. Court members also said the road is temporarily closed: county signage and the court’s prior direction have restricted through traffic in the disputed segment. The county prosecutor said he would not generally prosecute people for merely being on county land unless they damaged property or committed crimes.

Ending: The court approved a survey to clarify the lines and directed staff to return with survey results and a recommended path forward; stakeholders requested the Forest Service be included in future discussions.