|
12/12/2006 TUE 16:46 FAX
<br />Page 6 of 8
<br />E. Unlawful Delegation of Legislative Authority or Pourer.
<br />If a law incorporates by reference the law or rule of another governmental entity or
<br />private body and any future changes'to that law or rule this may constitute an unlawful delegation
<br />of legislative authority. The unlawful delegation problem can occur when a law or rule is
<br />incorporated as dasended or as revised. If a North Carolina law incorporates a federal
<br />regulation, as amended, then, the North Carolina law will automatically change when those
<br />amendments occur without action of the Legislature. One may assert that the state's legislative
<br />authority has been given to the federal agency. The present issue involves local ordinances that
<br />incorporate maps prepared by or approved by a federal agency, FEMA. One may assert that it is
<br />unlawful to permit FEMA. to change what constitutes a floodplain without any action on the part
<br />of the county or city.
<br />The N.C. model Flood Damage.Prevention Ordinance required by FV.MA attempts to
<br />adopt by reference future amendments. Ifa city adopts by reference a statute, together with any
<br />future amendments thereto, there is an unlawful delegation of legislative authority, rendering the
<br />ordinance unconstitutional. Brinkley v. Motor Vehicles Division, 47 Or. App. 25, 613 P.2d 1071
<br />(1980). See-also People v. Urban, 45 Mich. App. 255, 206 N.W, 2d 511 (1973); Warren v. State
<br />Construction Cade Commission 66 Mich. App. 493, 293 N.W. 2d 640 (1976); Independent
<br />CommuniMBailkers Association.of South Dakota. Inc., 346 N.W. 2d 737 (S.D. 1984); City of
<br />Salem v. Junublut. 83 Or. App. 540, 732 P. 2d 919 (1987).
<br />"Numerous other courts hold that a statute that attempts to incorporate fixture changes of
<br />another statute, code, regulation, standard, or guideline is an unconstitutional delegation of
<br />legislative power. See, e.g., International Assn of Plumbing. and Mechanical Officials v.
<br />California Bld . Standards Comm'n, 55 Cal. App. 4th 245, 64 Cal. R.ptr. 2d 129, 134
<br />(Cal.Ct.App. 1997); P=le v. Pollution Control Bd., 83 Ill. App.-3d 802, 404 N.E.2d 352, 356-
<br />357, 38 Ill. Dec. 928 (1980); Gumbhir v. Kansas State Bd. of Pharmacy, 228 Kan, 579, 618 P.2d
<br />837, 842=843 (1980); Michigan Mfrs. Assn v. Director of Workers'. Disability Compensation
<br />Bureau, 134 Mich. App. 723, 352 N.W.2d 712,•715 (1984); Meyer v. Lord, 37 Ore. App. 59, 586
<br />P.2d 367, 371 (1978); City of Chamberlain v. RE. Lien, Iric., 521 N.W.2d• 130, 132-133 (S.D.
<br />1994); Independent CommunityBankers Assn v. State, 346 N.W.2d 737, 744 (S.D. 1984);
<br />Woodson v. State, 95 Wash. 2d 257, 623 P.2d 683, 685 (1980)... [T]he adoption by reference of.
<br />future legislation and rules are unconstitutional. Micbigan Mfrs. Assn, 352 N.W.2d at 715.
<br />"The canons of statutory construction apply to the interpretation of an ordinance...."
<br />Moore v. Bd. of Adjustment of City of Kinston ,113 N.C. App. 181, 182, 437 S.E.2d 536, 537
<br />(1993) (internal citation omitted). Morris Communications Corporation v. Gastonia ,159 N.C.
<br />App. 598;'583 S.E.2d 419 (2003).
<br />0017/021
<br />b3
|