CHARLESTON — The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia has reversed a Kanawha Circuit Court decision that barred South Charleston from enforcing its prohibition on beekeeping within city limits, concluding that bees qualify as “animals” under state law and that municipal authority to regulate them was not displaced by state agricultural statutes.
In a memorandum decision issued Feb. 24, the appellate court found the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to M. Alex Urban and the West Virginia Department of Agriculture.
The lower court had determined that the city lacked authority to regulate bees and that its ordinance conflicted with the West Virginia Apiary Act and Right to Farm Act.
The appellate court reversed that ruling and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the City.
The dispute began in October 2022 when Urban applied for a permit to maintain two honey bee hives at his residence in South Charleston.
At the time, the city’s 2014 code required residents to obtain a permit from the Property Board to keep certain animals within city limits. Following a hearing in November 2022, the Property Board denied Urban’s application, citing safety concerns, the proximity of neighboring homes, and the potential for bees to swarm, sting and cause allergic reactions or other health consequences.
Urban filed suit in August 2023, challenging both the denial and the validity of the ordinance.
Shortly after that, the city amended its code to expressly prohibit the keeping of bees and other listed animals within city limits.
Urban amended his complaint to seek declaratory relief, arguing that bees are not “animals” under West Virginia Code, that the city’s ordinances were preempted by state law and that the earlier code lacked ascertainable standards in violation of due process.
The Department of Agriculture intervened in the case.
In January 2025, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Urban and the Department.
The court concluded that bees are not animals under the municipal-enabling statute and that, even if they were, the Apiary Act and Right to Farm Act vested exclusive regulatory authority in the state’s Commissioner of Agriculture.
On appeal, the Intermediate Court applied de novo review to the summary judgment order and questions of statutory interpretation.
The panel rejected the circuit court’s analysis, holding that the term “animal” in West Virginia is unambiguous and should be given its common, ordinary meaning.
The appellate court criticized the lower court’s reliance on definitions of “animal” found in other portions of the state code, noting that those definitions were expressly limited to the specific articles in which they appeared.
Instead, the court stated that undefined statutory terms are to be given their plain meaning, typically derived from dictionary definitions.
Citing Black’s Law Dictionary and Merriam-Webster, the court concluded that an animal is any living creature other than a human being or plant, a definition broad enough to include bees.
Because the circuit court failed to apply that plain meaning, the appellate court held that its conclusion that bees are not animals was erroneous.
The court also rejected the argument that the Apiary Act and the Right to Farm Act nullify municipal authority under § 8-12-5(25).
While acknowledging that those statutes address beekeeping and agricultural operations, the panel found no express language indicating a legislative intent to repeal or supersede municipal authority to regulate animals.
The court stated that repeal by implication requires a “positive repugnancy” between statutes that cannot be reconciled, and it found no such conflict.
“Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s January 23, 2025, order granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Urban and the Department, and remand the matter to the circuit court for entry of its order granting summary judgment in favor of the City,” the judges wrote in the decision.
Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia case number: 25-ICA-51
