Should have put up a high fence to keep flight path up, chain link the bees can fly right through.
Fortunately, that's not his property boundary that you're looking at. I believe that his extra supers are inside the chain-link fence.
I wonder if the ordinance specifies a infestation.
Yes it does. Here's an older article: http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/508408.html
I'm trying to find the Altoona Mirror article that had a copy of the original citation included. I think we're all more than a little taken back that they can interpret an ordinance such as that to cover beekeeping. The whole game changes whenever governing bodies decide they can 'bend' ordinances to stretch the areas they cover.
The president of our regional bee association has visited Mr. Nales home, and has been trying to assist Mr. Nales throughout this process, and some members of the state beekeeping association and other officials are trying to help out as well. Be assured that Mr. Nales has water supply, flight path, and other 'urban beekeeping concerns' addressed with his neighbors' safety in mind.
Our local organization has offered their support, but we need to see what Mr. Nales decided to do - whether or not he decides to appeal further, we should all understand the need for us to stand behind him. Like some others have said - the outcome of this case will help dictate other towns' stances on urban beekeeping - and that will impact a lot of us around here.
PS - Bjorn - THANK YOU - that was me.
PSS - If you check the article link at the top of this post, it quotes the lady as saying her 'husband' is allergic to bees. The video says it's the dog. :roll: :fishhit: