The post Missouri Woman Received Permits for a Manufactured Home. Months Later, the City Said It Had to Go first appeared on Crafting Your Home.
A Missouri homeowner who received city permits for a manufactured home now faces a zoning dispute after Chillicothe officials said the home wasn’t allowed in the neighborhood.
Taylor West, a Livingston County Sheriff’s Office sergeant, purchased and placed the manufactured home at 97 Garr Field Avenue in Chillicothe after going through the city’s permitting process. City records shown to KMBC included a building permit dated December 31, 2024, followed by a certificate of occupancy dated February 12, 2025. Both documents identified the property or structure as a manufactured home.
Months after West moved into the home, however, a city attorney told her the manufactured home did not comply with the property’s zoning rules and demanded that it be removed. The dispute later reached the city’s Board of Zoning Adjustments, which denied West’s request for a variance in May 2026.
The situation took another turn when Chillicothe Mayor Theresa Kelly acknowledged that city staff had made mistakes. She said the city was accepting responsibility and that the City Council had directed the city attorney to explore a possible agreement with West.
How the Manufactured Home Was Approved
West began purchasing and placing the home in 2024. According to KCHI, the city issued the building permit on December 31, 2024, and the certificate of occupancy on February 12, 2025. The documents became central to the later disagreement because the city’s paperwork did not simply identify the structure in vague terms.
KMBC reported that one building permit, signed by a city employee, approved moving a “manufactured home” onto West’s property. A second permit issued the same day referred to a new home and included requirements for blocks or concrete walls around the perimeter. The certificate of occupancy, signed by the city’s zoning administrator and building inspector, also identified the structure as a manufactured home.
KCHI likewise reported that the permit included special provisions requiring a cement or block wall around the building’s perimeter and 24 hours’ notice before the home was moved. West told KMBC that she worked directly with the city’s code inspector and believed she was following the required process. From her perspective, the permits and subsequent certificate of occupancy indicated that the city had approved the home.
That understanding became central to the dispute once city officials later questioned whether the home should have been permitted in the first place.
Why Did the City Later Object to the Home?
The central issue is the property’s zoning classification and the distinction between a manufactured home and a modular home. According to KCHI, West’s property is in an R-2 zoning district. The publication reported that the district did not allow manufactured or mobile homes. City Attorney Robert Cowherd gave a similar explanation to KMBC. He said West’s home was manufactured rather than modular and therefore was not permitted under the city’s zoning rules applicable to the neighborhood.
That distinction matters because “manufactured home” and “modular home” are not interchangeable. A manufactured home is generally built under federal manufactured-housing standards and typically sits on a permanent chassis. A modular home, by contrast, is constructed in sections and assembled on a permanent foundation under applicable building requirements. The precise legal definitions can vary by jurisdiction, which is why the classification used in a particular city’s zoning code matters.
In West’s case, the city maintained that the structure belonged in the manufactured-home category and that this category was prohibited at her property. The problem was that the city had already issued paperwork identifying the structure as a manufactured home.
West Was Later Told to Remove the Home
The dispute became more serious after West had already moved into the house. KCHI reported that after living in the home over the summer, West received a letter from the city attorney stating that the home was not allowed in the zoning district and that she had one year to remove it. KMBC reported that the city’s removal demand came in October 2025, several months after West received her certificate of occupancy. For West, removing the structure would not be as simple as moving a recently delivered building from one lot to another.
The home had been installed with foundation-related work. West told KMBC that moving it could damage the structure because of the concrete work completed around the foundation. The home’s seller also said removal could cost tens of thousands of dollars.
West has argued that she should not have to absorb the consequences of a permitting mistake by city officials. Her preferred resolution, she told KMBC, was to remain in the home rather than have the city spend money to buy her out or otherwise resolve the dispute through a payment.
The Mayor Acknowledged City Mistakes
The situation changed again a few days after the variance decision. On May 15, Mayor Theresa Kelly told KMBC that the city was accepting responsibility for mistakes made by city staff. She said the city wanted to correct those mistakes and had instructed its attorney to work with West and her attorney toward an agreement.
KCHI reported on May 18 that Kelly said she had discussed the issue with the City Council and that the council had directed the city attorney to pursue a settlement with West potentially. At that point, however, Kelly said she was not aware of further progress, while West said her attorney had not heard from the city.
The mayor’s acknowledgment that mistakes occurred does not, by itself, establish what legal remedy West is entitled to receive or whether the home can legally remain on the property. Those questions could depend on the city’s ordinances, applicable Missouri law, the permitting records, and any future court or settlement proceedings.
What it does establish is that the city’s leadership publicly acknowledged an error in the permitting process and said officials were looking for a way to resolve the dispute.
What Happens Next?
The central question is whether the city and West can reach an agreement or whether the dispute moves into further legal proceedings.
The most directly relevant reports reviewed indicate that the city considered a settlement after denying the variance. However, those reports did not establish that a settlement had been completed. KCHI reported on May 18 that Mayor Kelly was unaware of further progress at that time and that West’s attorney had not heard from the city.
The matter could therefore involve additional negotiations, an appeal or court proceedings, depending on what the parties decide to do.
For West, the immediate issue remains whether she can keep the home she purchased and installed after receiving city approvals. For Chillicothe, the case raises questions about how municipal permitting decisions interact with zoning restric