Just today we were discussing this very thing. The regional Boy Scout council has purchased a large parcel of land adjacent to its current camp. It's zoned agricultural, and they recently tried to get the zoning changed to accommodate Scout troops camping on it, development of hiking trails, and the building of a primitive cold-weather cabin.
Neighbors showed up at the zoning hearing and complained so vehemently about the Boy Scouts using the property (that THE BSA BOUGHT, PAID FOR, AND OWNED) that severe restrictions have now been placed on the use of the parcel. They cannot park a vehicle on it. They cannot have more than two (2) people on it simultaneously. They cannot build so much as a campfire on it, much less a cabin. My mouth was hanging open during the recitation of these restrictions, and I was sure it must be a joke. But no, the Scoutmaster assured me, it was no joke. Chalk it up to one more instance of absurdly restrictive "covenant" requirements enforcing ridiculous prohibitions on someone else's private property. (I mean, really, who could object to NATURE TRAILS being cultivated on the land, for crying out loud? And this is in a rural area, not some suburban neighborhood!)
BSA should take whomever tried to impose those restrictions to court. The restrictions represent a "taking" and are unconstitutional.