Summary
The Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 to rezone five parcels to a residential single-family/mobile-home district (RSF MH) after a public hearing in which nearby residents said the change should have been decided earlier and raised legal and code consistency questions.
Bradford County commissioners on Thursday approved an ordinance to amend the county’s official zoning atlas to rezone several parcels owned by Tommy Alexander, allowing residential single-family/mobile-home uses. The commission voted 5-0 after a public hearing and comment from an adjacent property owner’s attorney.
The rezoning, listed in the record as application Z25-02, was presented by the county’s zoning director and described as a companion to a resolution the Board of Adjustment had already adopted. After a public comment period and legal discussion, Commissioner Spooner moved to approve the ordinance and Commissioner Dolby seconded; the motion carried 5-0.
Neighbors immediately adjacent to the subject parcels told the commission they had not been afforded due process when the land was developed and said mobile homes and multiple small lots were already on the site. Attorney Byron Flagg, representing Scott Belford, said the Belfords live “right next door, literally,” and argued they should be recognized as an adversely affected party with expanded hearing rights. Flagg said the Belfords “were denied that due process” when the development occurred and that the current use — “five mobile homes on five half‑acre lots” — “is not currently allowed in [the] residential single family zoning district.”
Flagg disputed parts of the staff analysis and questioned the code and comprehensive‑plan consistency cited in the staff report. He noted the county’s comprehensive plan, he said, mentions mobile homes only in the rural element and that a provision in the land‑development code — section 4.90.6 as quoted in the staff report — sets a “minimum area for single family / mobile home district” of 10 acres. Flagg told the commission Alexander’s property is under that 10‑acre threshold and said the record did not explain how staff reconciled that apparent discrepancy.
County staff and the planning consultant recommended approval, and supporters of the rezoning pointed out adjacent properties to the north and south that are already zoned RSF MH 1. Commissioner Andrews read the code language the staff relied on, noting the RSF MH districts are intended to provide for “single family residential areas of low to medium density for single family dwellings and individual mobile homes within designated urban areas as defined in the county’s comprehensive plan.”
The commission observed that the application had been reviewed by planning consultants and that staff had provided a packet, including an affidavit and zoning‑atlas excerpts submitted by the parties. Commissioners also completed required ex parte disclosures on the record before the vote.
The ordinance approved by the commission amends Ordinance 96‑07 and updates the official zoning atlas for the parcels specified in application Z25‑02. The applicant’s record materials indicate the parcels are less than 10 acres in total, a point the Belford attorney said raises a separate legal question that could remain subject to later challenge.
The county did not adopt additional conditions or amendments as part of the approval. The Belfords’ attorney preserved objections on the record and indicated his clients may consider further legal review.
The action completes the county’s quasi‑judicial process on this application; the rezoning takes effect as provided in the ordinance language.
