ORD-2007-002 - Amendment to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance

Browse Search

12/12/2006 TUB 16:46 FAX ®017/021 13- Page 5 of 8 E. Uula~vful Delegation of Legislative Authority or Power. If a taw incorporates by reference the law or rule of another governmental entity or private body and any future changes to that law or rule this may constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. The unlawful delegation pmblcm can occur when a law or rule is incorporated as amexd~d or as revised. If a North Carolina law incorporates a federal regulation, as amended, then, the North Carolina law will automatically change when those amendments occur without action of the Legislature. One may assert that the state's legislative authority has been given to the federal agency. The present issue involves local ordinances that incorporate maps prepared by or approved by a federal agency, FEMA. One may assert that it i~s unlawful to permit FEMA to change what constitutes a t]oodplain without any action on the part of the county oi• city. The N.C. model Flood Damage.Prevention Ordinance required by F1;MA atter~tpts to adopt by reference future amendments. If a city adopts by reference a statute, together with any future ameaidments theroto, there is an unlawful delegation of legislative authority, rendering the ordinance unconstitutional. ~rinklev v Motor Vehicles Division. 47 Or. App. 25, 613 P.2d 1071 (1980). See~al~ PeoQle v. Urban. 45 Mich. App. 255, 206 N.W. 2d 511(1973); Warren v. State Construction Code mmission 66 Mich. App. 493, 293 N.W. 2d 640 (1976); d ~ ent Community BaiSkers Assoaation of South Dakota. Inc., 345 N.W. 2d 737 (S.D. 1984); Ci.~. of Salem v. J btu 83 Or. App. 540, 732 P. 2d 919 (1987). . . "Numerous other courts hold that a statute that attempts to incorporate future changes of another statute, code, regulation, standard, or guideline is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative pov~ter. See, e.g., International Assn ofPlumbina. and Mechanical Officials v. ~ . California Bldg. Standards Comm'n, 55 Cal. App. 4th 245, 64 CaL Rptr. 2d 129, 134 (Cal.Ct.App. 1997); Pe~„ple v. Pollution Control Bd., 83 Ill. App.' 3d 802, 404 N.E.2d 352, 356- 357, 38111. Dec. 928 {1,980); ['~mbhir v. Kansas State Bd. of Pharmacy, 228 Kan. 579, 618 P.2d 837, 842 843 (1980); Michigan Mfrs Assn v Director of Workers'.Disability CC~mpensation Bureau, 134 Mich. App. 723, 352 N.W.2d 712,•715 (1984); Meyer v. Lord, 37 Ore. App. 59, 586 P2d 367, 371 (1978); City of Chamberlain v. R.E. Lien. Inc., 521 N.W.2d• 130, 132-133 (S.D. 1994); Independent Community Bankers Assn v. State. 345 N_W.2d 737, 744 (S.D. 1984); Woodson v. State, 95 Wash. 2d 257, 623 P.2d 683, 685 (1980)... [T]he adoption by reference of future legislation and rules are unconstitutional. Michiean Mfrs. Assn, 352 N.W.2d at 715. "Tl-e canons of statutory construction apply to the interpretation of an ordinance...: ' Moore v Bd of Adjustment of Cit~r of Kinston.113 N.C. App. 181,182, 437 S.E.2d 536, 537 (1993) (internal citation omitted). Mortis Communications Corporation v. Gastonia.159 N.G. App. 598; 583 S.E.2d 419 (2003).