What happened: The Midland City Council considered a zoning request for a property with a single manufactured home and ended with a deadlocked motion, a pending lawsuit, and a homeowner facing the possibility of losing his home.

The issue centers on 3901 Jadan Kate Rd., where property owner Michael Miller placed a manufactured home on his land, zoned Agricultural Estate (AE), after relying on a zoning chart he says he pulled directly from the city’s Planning and Zoning website. City staff later halted the project, saying the chart was outdated. Under current city rules passed in 2019, the city does not allow manufactured housing in AE districts.

Why it matters: The case highlights how Midland’s zoning system can be nearly impossible for a non-expert to navigate, even when residents rely on city-published materials, consult professionals, and follow what they believe to be the prescribed process.

This was not a case of someone knowingly ignoring the rules. Instead, it reflected how flawed or conflicting guidance from government and development professionals can make compliance unrealistic for average residents.

The big picture: City staff said the parcel falls under restrictive covenants tied to the nearby Timberwolf Estates, which prohibit temporary structures and require homes to meet minimum square footage and masonry standards.

Miller disputed that claim, saying neither his deed nor the land documents he reviewed referenced Timberwolf Estates restrictions. Miller said he personally visited Martin County offices with the seller, where, he said, the county told him there were no applicable restrictions.

Go deeper: He said city staff initially told him the situation would be a “formality” and that rezoning would resolve it. The Planning and Zoning Commission later voted 4–3 to deny the request on Dec. 15. Miller pointed to other manufactured homes nearby, some older, some newer, that remain in AE zoning. However, city staff said those homes likely pre-dated the 2019 ordinance changes, and the law considers them legal nonconforming uses.

During public comment, the attorney for Anderson Construction, the party asserting the covenant restriction, acknowledged the difficulty of navigating city ordinances. “I have trouble reading the city’s ordinances,” he said, “I’ve got 20 years of legal experience. It’s not easy.”

What they’re saying: “I’ve spent pretty much my whole entire savings on this,” Miller told council, explaining that he and his wife pursued the property to house their infant grandson after the loss of their 25-year-old son.

What’s next: The rezoning request failed after Councilman Brian Stubbs’ motion to approve died for lack of a second. Council members urged the Millers and Anderson Construction to seek a negotiated solution. A lawsuit involving the restrictive covenants is pending in Martin County’s 118th District Court, where a judge may decide the outcome.