Agenda - 08-17-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- • ;-,' '; .: . . Memorandum t Pucker Page Two May 19, 1982 through 105A77.7. Any such enabling legislation would have to be "uni- formly appliable in every county, city, and town, and other unit of local government" in the State. See generally, Hajoca Corp. v. Clayton, 277 N.C. 560, 17 S.E.2d 481 (1971). II. Ther e could be some question as to whether existing general en- abling legisltion could be interpreted, Or a local act enacted, to allow the provision for assessment of attorneys fees as a part of the costs of a civil suit. Article VI, § 20 of the North Carolina Constitution provides that . . The"General Assembly shall provide for the establishment of a schedule of court fees and costs which shall be uniform through- out the State within each division of the General Court of Justice. I do not know whether assessment of attorneys fees by the court would be held to be assessment of "costs" within the meaning of Art. IV, § 20. Drennan, Brannon, and Cannaday should be consulted on this point. III. I Ido not believe the Court would sustain a county ordinance which attempted to restrict the power of eminent domain conferred by law . . on the State, or other units of local government, and public service cor- . ..._. poratione. I- would be constitutional to delegate such authority either by general la-t, classified general law, or local act. However, I would not expect anr such law to gain enactment unless it were strictly limited to Orange Couttty and excluded the State and public service corporations from its provisions (i.e., electric power, telephone, gas, pipeline, and railroad companies). . I IV. If a general law were enacted authorizing ordinances similar to the proposed Orange County ordinance, I would want a more precise defini- tion of what is meant by "any new structure permanently affixed and rea- sonably'used or farm activities" as set out in § 2.3(a) of the ordinance. The problem is with the word "new." Would it include a major enlargement or improvement of an existing building? V. I would also want a more precise definition of "poultry, swine or dairy bona fide farm units," I see two major problems: (1) how many :r chickens, hogs, or cattle does one have to keep in order to be a bona fide "poultrylfarm unit," e.g., and (2) what is a "farm unit." When it was first ena ted, the use value law referred to "farm unit." That con- cept proved almost impossible to administer because it implied that tracts of land did not have to be contiguous in order to be part of a "farm unit," Yet, no one knew what could comprise such a "unit," The use value statute now uses the term "farm tract." That has its problems as well, but tax administrators follow the rule that a "farm tract" is a piece of land within a continuous boundary, , ttill111111L, !MI . . . . . • . .