Planning board sustains homeowner's appeal, lifts stop-work order in dispute over modular home

The Boyle County/City planning and zoning board of adjustments on a 4–3 vote sustained an administrative appeal by homeowner Emily Behr and overturned a Junction City notice of violation and county stop‑work order, allowing the modular home at 111 Simpson Lane to remain and construction to continue subject to required inspections.

Appellant counsel Eric Eaton told the board the unit was a modular home, not a HUD‑regulated manufactured/mobile home, and presented permits, manufacturer sales paperwork and a state review letter from the Kentucky Division of Building Code Enforcement showing HBC reviewed the model and found it consistent with the Kentucky building/residential code. "No HUD seal has been issued to this house or will ever be issued to this house," Eaton said, arguing that under the joint ordinances a HUD label is required for a structure to qualify as a HUD‑regulated manufactured home.

A state witness backed Eaton’s characterization. Carrie Graham, field operations manager for the Department of Housing, Buildings and Construction, testified HBC had reviewed the unit as an industrialized/modular building and issued approval for the model. "It was reviewed as such and issued an approval as a modular building," Graham said, noting that HBC typically reviews the modular unit itself while local officials handle site placement and anchoring inspections.

Junction City code enforcement officer Scott Terry explained his March 2025 inspection and the basis for the notice of violation: he said the unit arrived and was set as a single piece on piers with a steel chassis and tongue and that he had observed a permit posted that referenced manufactured housing language. "It was on a chassis. You pull it in. You unhook it," Terry testified, adding he had relied on his visual observations at the time. During cross‑examination he acknowledged he had not searched for or located a HUD label under the unit or recorded a VIN before issuing the notice.

Civil engineer Luther Galloway told the board that HBC guidance ordinarily requires modular homes to be set on permanent, engineered foundations and anchored similar to site‑built houses; he described how HBC and local officials divide responsibilities for model review versus site placement, and said that compliance with state building code does not relieve an owner of local planning and zoning requirements.

Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing said the unit looked like a mobile home and expressed concerns about property values and the unit’s current unfinished appearance. Behr told the board she had pursued permits and approvals in good faith, said she serves as a local paramedic and has not rented the property, and asked for the opportunity to finish work halted by the stop‑work order.

Board counsel reminded members their review is limited: they must decide whether the administrative official had "substantial evidence" to support the notice or whether the officer's decision was arbitrary and capricious. After deliberation, members favoring the appellant said the documentary evidence (HBC review letter, sales documents, M‑seal evidence presented by Eaton, and manufacturer testimony) undercut the enforcement officer's conclusion that the unit was a HUD‑regulated mobile home. Members in the minority relied on on‑site observations and neighborhood concerns.

The motion to sustain the appeal passed 4–3. The board’s vote effectively cleared the path for Behr to complete the home subject to the county/local building official’s remaining site inspections and any conditions the board’s procedural rules require. The board did not order removal of the neighboring unit that some commenters identified as HUD‑labeled; that separate enforcement question remains outside this appeal.

The board continued with other agenda items after the decision.