Washington’s Board of Adjustment, during its meeting Thursday, revoked a notice of violation issued to John D. Moore III that said he violated a city ordinance that prohibits the keeping of farm animals in the city.

The board voted 4-1 to nullify the violation notice, with board members Derik Davis, Andy Olsen, Richard McDonald and Tim Cashion voting to revoke the notice. Board Chairman Steve Fuchs voted against the motion to revoke the notice. The city can appeal the board’s decision to Beaufort County Superior Court.

Moore was sent a notice of violation (dated Nov. 14, 2016) that informed him that the keeping and boarding of horses at 2310 N. Market St. “is unlawful and a prohibited use of your property.” The notice told Moore he could remedy the violation by relocating the horses to a property outside the city limits. John Rodman, the city’s director of community and cultural resources, signed the notice.

The city code reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to keep at any time any type of farm animal or fowl within the city.”

The board had three options: affirm the notice, modify the notice or revoke the notice. Moore faced the possibility of an injunction, civil penalties and/or criminal penalties (misdemeanor).

The board, a quasi-judicial body, heard sworn testimony and received evidence during the meeting.

Moore said he considers the two horses he keeps in a 3-acre pasture as pets, not farm animals. Several people in the audience supported Moore, and some of Moore’s neighbors wrote letters in support of Moore’s appeal.

Moore and Rodman agreed that last summer Rodman gave verbal permission for Moore to keep horses in the pasture. Rodman said he later became uncomfortable with his initial decision to allow the horses. Rodman said he determined that allowing the horses violated a city ordinance, so he issued the notice of violation. Rodman said he did not notify Moore that he changed his mind about the horses. Moore said he was unaware Rodman had second thoughts about allowing the horses until he received the notice of violation.

Moore said he was initially given verbal approval for three horses in the pasture, but later was told he could only have two horses. Subsequently, Moore said, he was notified he could not keep any horses in the pasture.

Rodman said after he gave verbal permission to Moore, he reviewed the city code and ordinances. The city’s regulations do not define the term “farm animal,” Rodman said. After that review, Rodman said, he decided to issue the notice of violation. Because the city’s regulations do not list the keeping of farm animals as an allowed use on Moore’s land, such use would be prohibited, according to Rodman.

Moore said the horses provide pleasure to his family and others. They are not used as work animals, he said.

City Attorney Franz Holscher told the board that receiving permission from an official, acting in good faith, to do something is not a reason to allow a violation of city regulations to continue. He also presented case law in which North Carolina courts defined horses as farm animals, no matter how they are used by their owners. He also said because horses are not listed as a permitted use in the city, they are prohibited.

Holscher asked the board to affirm the notice of violation.

Davis said it would be unfair to penalize Moore, considering he was given verbal permission to keep the horses. McDonald said Moore should be able to keep the horses. Fuchs said nullifying the notice of violation could result in other people “putting horses in their backyards” and justify doing that because Moore was allowed to keep his horses.

Moore, Rodman and the board members agree the city code and city ordinances are somewhat ambiguous when it comes to defining farm animals. Fuchs noted that although the city’s regulations prohibit farm animals in the city, those same regulations address the construction of barns and stables.

Board members said the city code and city ordinances need updating as soon as possible.