NORTH CAROLINA — The Rules Review Commission is challenging a judge’s recent decision to uphold regulations meant to safeguard the state’s coastal habitats. Lawmakers recently approved additional funds for the lead attorney behind the appeal, who is also representing the NC GOP in ongoing election policy lawsuits.
READ MORE: Helene recovery bill would fund lawsuit blocking coastal protection rules
Wake County Superior Court Judge William Pittman issued an amended ruling last week reinforcing his favorable February decision to reinstate 30 rules adopted by the Coastal Resources Commission and Division of Coastal Management. The lawsuit was filed by the Coastal Resources Commission after a separate state agency blocked the rules’ implementation in 2023.
The Coastal Resources Commission is a 13-member body that establishes state coastal protection policies, including the Coastal Area Management Act and the Dredge and Fill Act. It is appointed by the governor, General Assembly, and insurance commissioner.
The Rules Review Commission opposes the readoption of 30 of the Coastal Resource Commission’s longstanding coastal protection rules. They include a broad range of guidelines including enforcement of CAMA development permits, variance requests, and designation of certain regions — including Permuda Island off North Topsail — as areas of environmental concern.
Ashley Berger Snyder — the former Codifier of Rules and daughter of Senate President Phil Berger — stripped the 30 rules from the state’s administrative code in October 2023.
RRC’s objections to the rules included excessively ambiguous language, lack of necessity or duplicative regulations, and the authority of the Coastal Resources Commission to enact policy.
Following Pittman’s decision, the Rules Review Commission agreed to temporarily reinstate the 30 rules Monday. However, it agreed during a Feb. 27 meeting to challenge the decision and filed a notice to the North Carolina Court of Appeals last week.
Coastal municipalities including North Topsail have raised concerns removing the rules would threaten federal beach renourishment funding, harm local governments’ ability to collect permit fees, negatively impact the use of dredge materials, and diminish protection of Permuda Island and other valuable state resources.
Carolina Beach Town Manager Bruce Oakley told PCD the town is closely watching the case.
“The rules — now restored for the time being — are essential for preserving the state’s beautiful beaches, fueling the state’s tourism economy, and safeguarding our fisheries and other natural resources,” Southern Environmental Law Center attorney Julie Youngman told Port City Daily.
The Rules Review Commission is an agency within the Office of Administrative Hearings charged with approving rules adopted by other state agencies in accordance with G.S. 150B-21.9; the commission must determine if proposed rules follow standards and are:
- Within the authority delegated to the agency by the General Assembly
- Clear and unambiguous
- Reasonably necessary
- Adopted in compliance with the APA
The statute notes the commission “shall not consider questions relating to the quality or efficacy of the rule but shall restrict its review to determination of the standards set forth in this subsection.”
The 10-member Rules Review Commission is appointed entirely by General Assembly leaders and has expanded in power over the last decade. It has faced multiple lawsuits from other state agencies in recent years alleging it acted outside of its statutory authority; a 2013 law required the RRC to review all state rules every 10 years, including the long-standing coastal protection rules, and a 2023 law gave the agency new authority to send rules it objects to back to agencies.
Youngman submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the North Carolina Coastal Federation noting Rules Review Commissioners originally rejected staff counsel’s recommendation to object to the Coastal Resources Commission. RRC counsel argued terms such as “adverse environmental impact” within the rules were too vague and Coastal Area Management Act rules should not be enforced as state policies.
Commissioners expressed concerns about the recommendation and asked counsel to revise it. They noted the General Assembly authorized the Coastal Resources Commission to adopt enforceable CAMA rules and the term “significant adverse impact” has historically been used in the same context without RRC objection. Despite earlier concerns, the Rules Review Commissioners voted to block the regulations months later.
“The entire tenor of the RRC’s discussion of the CAMA rules during its December 2022 meeting foreshadowed that its ultimate decision to later block the rules would be arbitrary and capricious,” attorney Julie Youngman wrote.
Rules Review Commission counsel and legislative liaison William Peaslee is former chief of staff and general counsel for the North Carolina GOP. Baker Donelson attorney John Branch III — who is leading the Rules Review Commission’s case — is also the former general counsel of the North Carolina Republican Party.
A provision within a 2017 law gave Peaslee the ability to receive compensation from his position on the Property Tax Commission while being employed in another state position.
“This special pay benefit for one employee getting two state salaries is unnecessary and unfair to other state employees,” former Gov. Roy Cooper wrote in his veto statement of the 2017 bill.
Branch has represented the party in multiple election lawsuits against the State Board of Elections, including ongoing cases alleging the agency failed to accurately verify voters’ citizenship, implement appropriate voter registration procedures, and remove noncitizens from voter rolls. Branch co-signed a letter to board of elections members in May arguing the state board failed to adhere to state statutes regarding voter ID and absentee ballot procedures.
A controversial 131-page Helene relief bill, S.B. 382, allocated $250,000 to the Rules Review Commission to fund private legal counsel, included expansive power shifts from incoming Democratic officials to Republicans, and broad procedural changes to election administration. The Rules Review Commission has at least four staff attorneys and other agencies involved in the case are represented by in-house counsel.
North Carolina Association of Directors of Elections President and Brunswick County Board of Elections Director Sara LaVere wrote a December letter to General Assembly members raising concerns new ballot-counting timelines in the law would sacrifice election efficiency and accuracy.
“Unfortunately, it does not appear that the drafters of SB 382 consulted with election administrators during the drafting process,” LaVere wrote in a December letter. “The timelines and requirements in the legislation do not align with the practical realities of running elections in our state.”
The Rules Review Commission originally hired three attorneys for its suit against the CRC in November 2023, including Nelson Mullins attorneys Martin Warf and Jordan Koonts. The attorneys withdrew from the case in November 2024.
Warf is representing House Speaker Destin Hall and Senate President Phil Berger in Gov. Josh Stein’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB 382. Koonts is representing the Republican party in its effort to invalidate 60,000 votes of Supreme Court candidate Allison Riggs in the 2024 election.
Administrative law experts have raised concerns about ideological influences impacting the Office of Administrative Hearings under the leadership of Chief Administrative Law Judge Donald van der Vaart, who Chief Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby appointed to the position in 2021. Port City Daily reached out to Peaslee to ask him about the appeal and partisan influence in the OAH and RRC but did not receive a response by press.
Tips or comments? Email info@portcitydaily.com
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our morning newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
