[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]
The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 6534 August 16, 1988 STATE CONSTRUCTION CODE ACT OF 1972: Exemption of agricultural buildings from model building code adopted by governmental subdivision A governmental subdivision which has elected to adopt and enforce a nationally recognized model building code in lieu of the State Construction Code can enforce provisions of such model code which relate to agricultural buildings and structures. Honorable Glenn Oxender State Representative The Capitol Lansing, Michigan 48909 You have requested my opinion on whether a governmental subdivision which has elected to adopt and enforce a nationally recognized model building code in lieu of the State Construction Code can enforce the provisions of such model code which relate to agricultural buildings or structures. In order to answer your question, it is necessary to refer to the State Construction Code Act of 1972, MCL 125.1501 et seq; MSA 5.2949(1) et seq (Act). MCL 125.1503; MSA 5.2949(3), created the State Construction Code Commission. The commission is empowered under MCL 125.1504; MSA 5.2949(4), to "prepare and promulgate the state construction code consisting of rules governing the construction, use, and occupation of buildings and structures" and, in fact, has done so. 1979 AC, R 408.30101 et seq. MCL 125.1502(1)(f); MSA 5.2949(2)(1)(f), defines the term "building" as "a combination of materials, whether portable or fixed, forming a structure affording a facility or shelter for use or occupancy by persons, animals, or property. The term does not include a building incidental to the use for agricultural purposes of the land on which the building is located if it is not used in the business of retail trade. ..." MCL 125.1502(1)(z); MSA 5.2949(2)(1)(z), defines the term "structure" as "that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or a piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. Structure does not include a structure incident to the use for agricultural purposes of the land on which the structure is located. ..." Finally, MCL 125.1502(1)(a); MSA 5.2949(2)(1)(a), defines the term "agricultural purposes" as follows: " 'Agricultural or agricultural purposes' means of, or pertaining to, or connected with, or engaged in agriculture or tillage which is characterized by the act or business of cultivating or using land and soil for the production of crops for the use of animals or humans, and includes, but is not limited to, purposes related to agriculture, farming, dairying, pasturage, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, and animal and poultry husbandry." Agricultural buildings or structures located on and incidental to the operation of a farm are, therefore, excluded from the State Construction Code. It should be noted that this exclusion does not extend to any such buildings used in the business of retail trade. However, the application of the State Construction Code is not uniform throughout the state. MCL 125.1508(1); MSA 5.2949(8)(1), provides in pertinent part: "[A] governmental subdivision may elect to exempt itself from certain parts of this act and the code by adopting and enforcing a nationally recognized model building code or other nationally recognized model codes. ... "A governmental subdivision may make this election by the passage of an ordinance adopting by reference or otherwise without amendment a nationally recognized model building code or other nationally recognized model codes." The validity of such an election was recognized by the court in Ypsilanti Twp v. Edward Rose Building Co, 112 Mich App 64, 71; 315 NW2d 196 (1981). The Act also provides for the subsequent amendment of a model code by the governmental subdivision adopting it, while at the same time ensuring that amendments to the detriment of the people of the governmental subdivision do not occur. MCL 125.1508(1); MSA 5.2949(8)(1), provides in pertinent part: "[A] governmental subdivision adopting nationally recognized model codes may approve amendments to those codes by ordinance. The amendments shall become effective 90 days after passage of the ordinance and 90 days after a certified copy of the ordinance is delivered to the commission, unless the commission determines after a public hearing that the codes, as amended, do not adequately protect the health, safety, or welfare of the people of the governmental subdivision, or that the amendments tend to unnecessarily increase construction costs or restrict the use of new materials, products, or methods of construction or provide preferential treatment to types or classes of materials, products, or methods of construction, or that the amendment obstructs the substantive uniformity of building codes within a region or locality in the state." The ability of a governmental subdivision to amend an adopted building code was recognized by the court in Moore v. Detroit, 146 Mich App 448, 468-469; 382 NW2d 482 (1985), lv den 428 Mich 919 (1987). However, governmental subdivisions are prohibited from exempting themselves from certain provisions of the Act as set forth in MCL 125.1508(7), (10); MSA 5.2949(8)(7), (10). A number of governmental subdivisions have elected to exempt themselves from certain parts of the Act and the State Construction Code by adopting a nationally recognized model building code. Among the codes that have been adopted and are being enforced is the Uniform Building Code, published by the International Conference of Building Officials. That code, unlike the State Construction Code, contains provisions relating to the construction of agricultural buildings and a requirement that a building permit be obtained for their construction. Your question, in essence then, is whether these provisions can be enforced in light of the exclusion from the State Construction Code of certain agricultural buildings and structures. In Chamski v Wayne County Bd of Auditors, 288 Mich 238, 258; 284 NW 711 (1939), the court said: " 'Statutes should be so construed, if possible, as to give full effect to every part and render no portion nugatory, every clause and word being presumed to have some force and meaning.' " This rule was again stressed in King v Second Injury Fund, 382 Mich 480, 492; 170 NW2d 1 (1969), wherein the court stated: "In many decisions we have followed the rule of statutory construction as stated in 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3d ed), Sec. 4705, p 339: " 'It is an elementary rule of construction that effect must be given, if possible, to every word, clause and sentence of a statute. A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant, and so that one section will not destroy another unless the provision is the result of obvious mistake or error.' " The Act specifies those portions of the Act and the State Construction Code from which a governmental subdivision may not exempt itself, and includes, inter alia, those relating to the requirements of barrier free design and energy conservation. MCL 125.1508(7), (10); MSA 5.2949(8)(7), (10). However, there is no provision which prohibits a governmental subdivision from adopting a nationally recognized model code which contains provisions relating to the construction of agricultural buildings or structures. To the contrary, the Act expressly directs governmental subdivisions adopting a nationally recognized model code to do so "by reference or otherwise without amendment." MCL 125.1508(8); MSA 5.2949(8). It is my opinion, therefore, that a governmental subdivision which has elected to adopt and enforce a nationally recognized model building code in lieu of the State Construction Code can enforce the provisions of such model code which relate to agricultural buildings or structures. Should the Legislature desire to exclude agricultural buildings and structures from the provisions of all building codes in effect in this state, it may appropriately amend the State Construction Code Act of 1972. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General
[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]