The chambers of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals is set to consider whether the city of South Charleston has the legal authority to prohibit beekeeping within city limits, after beekeeper M. Alex Urban appealed an Intermediate Court of Appeals decision that sided with the city in a closely watched dispute over municipal powers, state agricultural law and the legal classification of honeybees.
The Supreme Court docketed the appeal and established a briefing schedule, with Urban's opening brief due July 27, respondents' brief due Sept. 10 and any reply due Sept. 30.
The appeal stems from Urban's 2022 application for a permit to keep two honeybee hives at his South Charleston residence under the city's former ordinance governing the keeping of animals.
The city's Property Board denied the application in January 2023, citing concerns that beekeeping could create a nuisance, health problem or unsanitary condition because bees can swarm, sting and cause allergic reactions.
According to court filings, Urban argued that he had extensive beekeeping experience, had obtained the consent of neighboring property owners and that honeybees provide environmental and economic benefits.
After Urban filed suit in Kanawha Circuit Court, South Charleston amended its ordinance in August 2023 to replace the permit process with an outright prohibition on keeping bees and other listed animals within city limits.
Urban subsequently amended his complaint, arguing that bees are not "animals" under the municipal statute relied upon by the city, that state agricultural laws preempt the city's ordinance, and that the earlier permitting ordinance violated due process.
The circuit court ruled in Urban's favor in January 2025, granting summary judgment for both Urban and the West Virginia Department of Agriculture, which had intervened in the case.
The court concluded that bees were not "animals" within the meaning of the municipal statute authorizing cities to regulate or prohibit animals and further held that the city's prohibition conflicted with the West Virginia Apiary Act and the Right to Farm Act, which assign regulatory responsibilities over beekeeping to the Department of Agriculture.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed that decision in March.
According to the notice of appeal, the appellate court focused on two issues it considered dispositive: whether honeybees qualify as animals under West Virginia Code § 8-12-5(25) and whether the Apiary Act or Right to Farm Act invalidates the city's authority to regulate or prohibit beekeeping.
The Intermediate Court concluded that the statute unambiguously authorizes municipalities to regulate or prohibit beekeeping because bees fall within the ordinary meaning of "animal" and determined that the agricultural statutes do not displace municipal authority.
The case was remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the city.
Urban's petition to the state's highest court raises 11 assignments of error challenging that ruling.
Among them, he argues the Intermediate Court improperly relied on dictionary definitions of "animal" instead of statutory context, failed to construe municipal authority narrowly, incorrectly rejected arguments that the Apiary Act, Right to Farm Act and Cottage Law Act preempt the city's ordinance, and overlooked his claim that he has a statutory right to engage in a cottage industry centered on producing and selling honey.
The petition also argues the case presents issues of first impression involving municipal regulation of agriculture and should not have been resolved through a memorandum decision.
Supporting materials filed with the appeal include affidavits from individuals affected by the ordinance.
One South Charleston resident who has maintained honeybee hives at her home since about 2014, stated that she registers her hives annually with the West Virginia Department of Agriculture, follows the state's Best Bee Management Practices and earns modest supplemental income from selling honey.
The resident stated that since the city enacted its ordinance criminalizing beekeeping, she fears prosecution, no longer publicly discusses her beekeeping activities, backs her vehicle into her driveway to conceal a beekeeper bumper sticker and tends her hives discreetly because she worries about being reported to city officials.
She also stated that she has never received complaints from neighbors regarding her bees and that neighbors have complimented the hives' pollination benefits.
Robert Lee Bolton III, who represents Urban before the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, said he expects organizations to submit amicus briefs supporting his client's position in the coming months.
Bolton also noted that he is a professor at Fairmont State University and said he accepted the case for a heavily reduced fee because he believes Urban's position is both legally and morally justified.
"I feel very passionately about this case and took it on for a heavily reduced fee because I believe my client is not only legally correct in his position, but also morally justified in his position," Bolton said in an interview with The West Virginia Record.
Under the Supreme Court's scheduling order, the appeal will become ready for consideration after the briefing process is complete.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 26-224
