SOUTH CHARLESTON — A Kanawha County Circuit Court ruling has overturned South Charleston’s ban on beekeeping, siding with a plaintiff and the West Virginia Department of Agriculture.
The decision invalidates the city’s ordinance prohibiting honeybees, citing conflicts with state law and overreach of municipal authority.
M. Alex Urban, an experienced beekeeper and South Charleston city resident, challenged the ban when he sought to keep bees and the city denied the request.
The court found the classification of bees as animals invalid, determining that bees do not fall under the definition of "animals" as outlined in West Virginia Code § 8-12-5(25).
The ruling also emphasized that regulatory authority over beekeeping rests solely with the WVDA under the West Virginia Apiary Act.
The decision reaffirms the state’s commitment to preserving agricultural practices and limits municipal powers to those explicitly granted by the Legislature.
The case, filed in 2023, 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 contended 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 the earlier interview.
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 argued that the ordinance was valid and that the permit denial was within its rights as a municipality.
Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 23-C-683