Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners deny Lockhart Road rezoning amid neighborhood concerns

Hernando County Board of County Commissioners · September 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Hernando County commission voted 5–0 to deny a request to rezone 6191 Lockhart Road from agricultural to highway commercial after neighbors and commissioners said the petition’s allowed uses were too broad and the site plan was unclear.

The Hernando County Board of County Commissioners on Sept. 2 denied a rezoning request for 6191 Lockhart Road (file H2520) after lengthy public testimony and commissioner debate.

Casey Caine, the petitioner, told the board he owns the property and argued the parcel’s surroundings are becoming commercial and that a nearby approved PDP and planned roadway expansion justify a C‑2 designation. “When we talk about what is the end use essentially of this particular neighborhood, it is 100% going to be heavy commercial with regards to the easternmost portion,” Caine said. Neighbors countered that the application lacked a clear, specific development plan and expressed concern about potentially incompatible uses and hazards.

Planners noted the county Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended denial because the rezoning application allowed a wide range of intense uses without a firm development plan. Commissioners described the request as “creep” of commercial zoning into agricultural and residential areas and repeatedly cited the lack of specificity on permitted uses. One commissioner said the parcel is “too far in” from the main commercial corridor and that storage‑unit and industrial creep are community concerns.

After discussion, Commissioner Champion moved to deny the rezoning; the motion was seconded and passed 5–0. The outcome leaves the parcel zoned agricultural; the petitioner may choose to revise and resubmit with a more narrowly tailored application.