Agenda - 04-21-2009 - 5b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12/12/2006 1178 16:46 FAZ page 6 of 8 E. >Talarrfnl DeLegatioia of Leglslatlve Antltority or Poveer. If a law incotporatcs by inference tl~e taw or tuk of another gavemrnenta! cattily ar private~body and any future changes to that !aw a rule this may constitnte an unlawful ddegati>m of legistaliva authority. The nalawful delegation pmal7lem can ac;cur.when a law or cola is. incorporated as hex or ~ reriserl< If a North Carolit-a law incoCpotates a federal regulation, as amended, then, the North CCaraoliua law will automatically change wheal those atnendmenis occur without actimt of the Ilaturz One may as~rt that the state's kgislative authority has been given to the federal agency. The present issste involves local ~ that it~oorPorate snaps prepared by or apptovod by a fedea"al a~tcy, FEMA. One may ~asat that it is unlawful ba pe~ttit FLMA to change what oonsdtutes a poodplain witl~ut any act on the part of the county ai city. The N.C. inodd Flood Da~aaga.tion Qrdit~ance required by FI;MA attdt-p1s to adopt by reference future amoredmcnts.. If a.city adapts 6y reference a statute, together with any future ameiidtuassts thereto, there is an unlawua! 6degation of lagishtitve antharlty, rendering 0-e ordinance estiiutiobal. ~nklev,v Motor Vehicles Division. 47 Or App. 2S, 613 P2d 1471 (1980}. See•also ~eople v. I3than, 45 Mich. App. 255, 206 N.W. 2d 511(1973); Warren v State ~~n-alrttctlon +Code Cornrnission. 561Mctt_ ApP• 493, 293 N.W. 2d 640 (197G); ~ea~t . . Coan~ty Bailkeca Association .a~uth Dakota lac.. 346 N.ViI 2d 'Y37 (S.D. 1984) City of _ • : S ein'v. Junebhtf_ 83 Oc. App. 540, T32 F. 2d 919 (1987). . "1Juarmv~is other corms hole that a st~ta t3sat atoanpts to irncatporate futuue changes of another statute, calla, regolation, stat7dard, or gaideTu~e is ~an uncoustitutioaial dclegation of legislative povrex. Seer e.g., I~rnational Ass'a ofP j>~gand Meahatncal Oflmials v: ' . California Bldg St~aldards Comm'n. SS Cal. Agp. 4th 245, 64 CaL Rptr 2d 129,134 (CaI.CtApp_ 1997); Pegp}e v. Pol tition Coritcol Bd.. 83 Ill. App: 3d 802, 404 N.E.2d 352, 35b- 357, 38 ill. Dec: 928 (l 980} r~ambhir v Kansas State Bd. of Fhat7tiac~+. 228 Kan, 579, 618 F.2d 837, 842-843 (1980); ~irlichigan.Mfrs. Aas'n v. Director. of Wo~)~1.y Comte' b . ~ Buena 134lvfich. App: 723, 352 N:W.2d 712,•715 (1984); Mayer v. I..ord, 37 Ore. App. 59, 586 P3c1367, 371(197$); ~tv of Cha~mbcrlain v ILE~ Lien. Inc 521 IJ.W.2d-13Q, 132^133 (S.D. 1994); Xndeoeadent C_nnity Banlass Ass'a ~ State. 346 N: W.Zd 737.744 (S~. l 984 Woodson v. State: 95 Wash 2ci 257,'623 l?:2d 683, 685 (1980}... [Tjhe adoption by reference of future legislation and roles are unconstitutional. 352 N.W.2d at 715. . "the canons of statutory construction apply to the i7aterpretatiou of an ard'maBCe... " Min v Bd. of Adiustment of C~tY of Kind. l 131~_C. App.1 B 1, 182, 437 S.E.2d 536, 53? (1993) ('mten7al citation oautted). Harris Coamsunicati lion v: Gastonia 159 N.C. ..App. 598; 583.S.E.2d 419 (2003). ~8 9 i •i E i i i i E I