CHARLESTON — Kanawha Circuit Judge Tera Salango is considering motions to dismiss filed by the City of South Charleston and to intervene filed by the West Virginia Department of Agriculture (WVDA) in the South Charleston case involving honeybees and chickens.
The case, filed in 2023 by South Charleston resident Alex Urban, has sparked a broader debate about local governance.
“This case is about more than two bee hives or neighbors who wanted free honey,” Urban, the petitioner in the case, said to The West Virginia Record in an earlier interview. “This is about the sovereignty of the State of West Virginia and a constitutional officer — Commissioner of Agriculture Kent Leonhardt — who has the sole legislative authority to safely regulate honey bees in this state under the Apiary Act.”
The WVDA, in its motion to intervene, argued that the city’s actions threaten the agency’s authority under the West Virginia Apiary Act.
The Act grants the WVDA exclusive authority to regulate the keeping of honeybees. According to the WVDA, South Charleston’s use of an “animal” ordinance to deny Urban’s permit to keep honeybees undermines this authority and renders the Apiary Act meaningless.
Urban, who resides in a residential area zoned for agriculture, sought to keep honeybees on his property.
Despite assurances to neighbors and the city’s property board about the safety and management of the hives, his permit request was denied in January.
Urban contends the denial was arbitrary and inconsistent with state law.
In his October 2022 petition, Urban outlined measures to minimize risks, including using smokers to keep bees docile, stabilizing the hives, and ensuring their placement would not disrupt neighbors. He also highlighted the importance of honeybees as pollinators critical to agriculture, forestry, and ecological health.
“Honey bees help drive businesses through agriculture and forestry and provide for the beauty of our neighborhoods through flowers and shrubs,” Urban explained in an earlier interivew.
The denial of his petition has deprived Urban of engaging in a family tradition he holds dear. In his lawsuit, he seeks a judgment declaring the city’s ordinance void and preempted by the Apiary Act, as well as a permit to raise honeybees.
The WVDA’s involvement underscores the case’s broader implications. In its motion, the WVDA emphasized the need to protect its regulatory authority and prevent municipalities from encroaching on state law.
“If the City of South Charleston is permitted to use its ‘animal’ ordinance to deny an individual the ability to keep honeybees — when it would otherwise be permitted by the WVDA — then the City has usurped the authority of the WVDA, rendering the Apiary Act and accompanying regulations meaningless,” the motion states.
The city’s response challenges this interpretation, asserting its authority to regulate animals, including bees, under municipal code and state law.
South Charleston’s legal team argues that the ordinance is valid and that the permit denial was within its rights as a municipality.
Urban’s amended complaint, filed in December 2023, raises questions about whether bees qualify as "animals" under municipal law and whether local ordinances can override state regulations.
Urban also points to the West Virginia Cottage Law Act, which classifies honey as a non-potentially hazardous food, as further evidence that the city’s ordinance conflicts with state law.
Last month, the court granted Urban’s motion to supplement the record with evidence supporting his claims, including exhibits related to the economic and ecological benefits of honeybees and documentation from the city’s Facebook page announcing a new farmers market.
Urban contends that honey production aligns with the city’s support for local agriculture.
Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 23-C-683