{
  "id": 8524603,
  "name": "IN RE: APPEAL OF MEDICAL CENTER (Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University and North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc.) FROM THE DECISION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Medical Center",
  "decision_date": "1988-08-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 8721SC1080",
  "first_page": "107",
  "last_page": "111",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.C. App. 107"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "266 S.E. 2d 645",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "651"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561043
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "275"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 S.E. 2d 193",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.C. App. 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8359046
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/82/0414-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 L.Ed. 2d 285",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "390 U.S. 1028",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6373131,
        6372972,
        6372621,
        6372466,
        6372790
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/390/1028-05",
        "/us/390/1028-04",
        "/us/390/1028-02",
        "/us/390/1028-01",
        "/us/390/1028-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 37",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "42"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 147",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571698
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "153"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0147-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S.E. 116",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1908,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "118-19"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 N.C. 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270715
      ],
      "year": 1908,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "372"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/149/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "362 S.E. 2d 294",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "296"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.C. App. 637",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8358977
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/87/0637-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 506,
    "char_count": 9395,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.828,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4627839988701474e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34294760041994726
    },
    "sha256": "76901075b94d63104033d99bbb945dd18014a7b1bbc7e9d950693324d96652c4",
    "simhash": "1:3d17e21f5dcc1046",
    "word_count": 1443
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:36.579827+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges BECTON and JOHNSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN RE: APPEAL OF MEDICAL CENTER (Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University and North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc.) FROM THE DECISION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nIn early 1987, petitioner Medical Center (consisting of Bowman Gray School.of Medicine of Wake Forest University and North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc. and hereinafter called \u201cpetitioner\u201d) submitted plans for a high-rise building to the Engineering Division of the North Carolina Department of Insurance (the \u201cDepartment\u201d). Petitioner sought to construct a business occupancy facility which would be approximately 187 feet tall with eleven stories and 307,548 square feet of space. Based upon its interpretation of Section 402.2(f) of the North Carolina State Building Code (the \u201cCode\u201d), petitioner proposed to construct its building to comply with the fire resistance requirements of the Code\u2019s \u201cType II\u201d construction. Section 402.2(f) of the Code states:\nBusiness (B) and Mercantile (M) Occupancies of Type II Construction \u2014 The height of Business (B) and Mercantile (M) Occupancies of Type II construction shall not be limited provided the fire-resistance of all columns shall be not less than three (3) hours and the other structural members including floors shall be not less than shown in Chapter VI, but in no case less than two (2) hours except that roofs shall be of not less than one and one-half (IV2) hours fire-resistive construction. [Emphasis added.]\nThe Department informed petitioner that its building could not be designed for Type II construction since Table 400 of the Code required that all such buildings exceeding eighty feet or eight stories be designed for more fire-resistant Type I construetion. The Department interpreted Section 402.2(f) to allow Type II construction only for business/mercantile buildings of unlimited height measured in feet \u2014 not measured by stories. Petitioner appealed the Department\u2019s position to the Building Code Council (the \u201cCouncil\u201d) pursuant to N.C.G.S. Sec. 143-141 (1987). After the Council unanimously affirmed the Department\u2019s interpretation, petitioner appealed the Council\u2019s ruling to the Forsyth County Superior Court under Section 143441(d). The Superior Court found no grounds to reverse or modify the Council\u2019s decision under N.C.G.S. Sec. 150B-51 (1987) and therefore affirmed the Council in all respects. Petitioner appeals.\nAt the outset, we note petitioner\u2019s lone exception and assignment of error merely assert the court erroneously affirmed the Council\u2019s decision to require petitioner\u2019s building be designed for Type I construction. Our review is limited to the exceptions and assignments of errors set forth to the Superior Court\u2019s order. See Watson v. North Carolina Real Estate Comm\u2019n, 87 N.C. App. 637, 362 S.E. 2d 294, 296 (1987); N.C.R. App. P. 10(a). The only argument set forth in petitioner\u2019s brief is that the Council\u2019s interpretation of Section 402.2(f) defies that section\u2019s \u201cplain language\u201d and is thus \u201ccontrary to law.\u201d Cf. N.C.G.S. Sec. 150B-51(b)(4) (1987) (court may reverse or modify agency decision \u201caffected by other error of law\u201d); N.C.R. App. P. 28(a) (questions not discussed in brief are deemed abandoned).\nThus, the sole issue presented for review is whether Section 402.2(f) relaxes Type I construction standards for all business/mercantile buildings \u2014 regardless of how the building\u2019s height is measured \u2014 or whether Section 402.2(f) instead only modifies fire resistance requirements for business/mercantile buildings of eight stories or less. Petitioner\u2019s interpretation of Section 402.2(f) and Table 400 of the Code is simple: (1) Section 402.2(f) states the \u201cheight\u201d of business occupancy buildings of Type II construction shall not be limited provided the structures meet certain other fire resistance requirements; (2) Table 400 and the definitions of Section 201 of the Code recognize \u201cheight\u201d may be measured both in absolute \u201cvertical distance\u201d from the ground as well as by the number of \u201cstories\u201d measured from floor to ceiling; (3) since Section 402.2(f) does not in any way qualify its use of the term \u201cheight,\u201d a building may exceed both the normal \u201cheight-in-feet\u201d and \u201cstory\u201d limits of Type II business/mercantile buildings so long as its fire construction otherwise complies with the standards of , Section 402.2(f). Petitioner accordingly asserts the Superior Court should have simply adopted this alleged \u201cplain meaning\u201d of Section 402.2(f) \u201cwithout resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of . . . limiting [its] operation.\u201d (quoting Nance v. Southern Rwy., 149 N.C. 366, 372, 63 S.E. 116, 118-19 (1908)).\nHowever, the settled rule of construction regarding \u201cplain meaning\u201d is that \u201cwords should be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless the context, or history of the statute, requires otherwise.\u201d State v. Wiggins, 272 N.C. 147, 153, 158 S.E. 2d 37, 42 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1028, 20 L.Ed. 2d 285 (1968); see also In re Medical Center, 82 N.C. App. 414, 346 S.E. 2d 193 (1985). Given the general purposes of the Code, the specific context of Section 402.2(f) and the special expertise and responsibilities of the Council, We conclude the trial court correctly rejected petitioner\u2019s \u201cplain language\u201d construction and affirmed the Council\u2019s interpretation that Section 402.2(f) modifies fire resistance requirements only for business/mercantile buildings of eight stories or less.\nSection 143438(c) requires that the Code and its regulations be liberally construed to effect the ends of public health, safety, morals or general welfare. N.C.G.S. Sec. 143438(c) (1987). The Legislature has specifically imposed on the Council the obligation to prepare, adopt and amend the Code and to interpret its provisions on appeal from enforcement agencies. E.g., N.C.G.S. Sec. 143438(a), (d) (1987) (authorizing Council to prepare and amend Code); Sec. 143441(b) (authorizing Council to interpret Code in hearing appeals from enforcement agencies). As the Council itself promulgated the exception on which petitioners rely, the Council\u2019s interpretation of that exception must be given due consideration. See In re Broad and Gales Creek Community Ass\u2019n, 300 N.C. 267, 275, 266 S.E. 2d 645, 651 (1980).\nIn its brief, the Council has elaborated the purposes behind its classification of construction as \u201cType I\u201d and \u201cType II.\u201d Type I construction provides greater protection against fire than does Type II construction. Thus, Type II construction is reserved for buildings which are used by fewer occupants or for fewer purposes and which may accordingly be safely protected with less fire-resistant construction. The maximum possible heat generated by a building fire (its \u201cfire load\u201d) is a function of the building\u2019s height in feet, occupancy use, and number of stories. As the number of stories increases, so does the potential number of occupants and uses and thus the building\u2019s fire load increases. Conversely, a design with fewer stories results in a decreased fire load since the decreased square footage created allows fewer occupants or uses \u2014 regardless of the building\u2019s height in feet. For example, an airport control tower may be quite tall but have only one story and thus reduced occupancy usage. Since its fire load would thus be relatively minimal, it could safely be constructed to comply with Type II standards without diminishing fire protection for the building\u2019s occupants or the public.\nPetitioner\u2019s emphasis on the \u201cplain meaning\u201d of the term \u201cheight\u201d despite its context and purpose effectively abolishes more fire-resistant Type I construction for business/mercantile occupancy buildings. We decline to interpret the term \u201cheight\u201d in a manner that would result in an exception to a fire resistance standard abolishing the standard itself. By contrast, the Council\u2019s interpretation simply allows greater flexibility in commercial building design without sacrificing fire safety: the exception under Section 402.2(f) allowing Type II construction applies only to business/mercantile buildings of unlimited height but fewer than eight stories since the difference in \u201cfire load\u201d produced by such additional height is minimal.\nAccordingly, the Superior Court\u2019s judgment affirming the Council\u2019s interpretation of Section 402.2(f) of the Code is\nAffirmed.\nJudges BECTON and JOHNSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Roddey M. Lig\u00f3n, Jr., for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Angeline M. Maletto, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN RE: APPEAL OF MEDICAL CENTER (Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University and North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc.) FROM THE DECISION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL\nNo. 8721SC1080\n(Filed 2 August 1988)\nStatutes \u00a7 5.5\u2014 State Building Code \u2014 height of building measured in feet or stories\nAn exception of the N. C. State Building Code allowing for a less fire resistant type of construction applied only to business/mercantile buildings of unlimited height but fewer than eight stories, since the number of stories, rather than the height in feet, largely determined the \u201cfire load\u201d of a building and thus the necessity for greater fire resistance; therefore, petitioner\u2019s request to construct an eleven-story building 187 feet tall in compliance with the less fire resistant requirements of the Code was properly denied.\nAPPEAL by petitioner from Cornelius (J. Preston), Judge. Order entered 12 October 1987 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 March 1988.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Roddey M. Lig\u00f3n, Jr., for petitioner-appellant.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Angeline M. Maletto, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0107-01",
  "first_page_order": 135,
  "last_page_order": 139
}
