Tarquini v. Town of Aurora, 77 N.Y.2d 357 (1991)

The State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council has the authority to promulgate regulations concerning the safety of structures like swimming pools under Executive Law § 378(2), and the statutory exemption for pre-Code buildings does not apply to swimming pools.

Summary

This case addresses whether the State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council has the authority to require enclosures around residential swimming pools and whether a statutory exemption for buildings constructed before the Code’s effective date applies to pools. The Court of Appeals held that the Council’s authority extends to regulating structures like swimming pools to ensure safety and that the exemption only applies to buildings, not swimming pools. The decision underscores the broad authority granted to the Council to establish safety standards for various structures and premises within the state, separate and apart from fire and toxic gas risks.

Facts

Respondent Tarquini owned property on which he built an unenclosed outdoor swimming pool in 1982. In 1984, the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code became effective, including a regulation requiring enclosures around outdoor swimming pools. Tarquini did not build the required enclosure.

Procedural History

The Town of Aurora initiated an enforcement proceeding against Tarquini for violating the pool enclosure regulation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Town. Tarquini then sought a variance, which was denied. He commenced an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s judgment in the enforcement proceeding and dismissed the Article 78 proceeding, concluding the Council lacked authority to promulgate the pool enclosure regulation.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council exceeded its legislatively delegated authority by promulgating a regulation requiring enclosures around residential outdoor swimming pools.
2. Whether the statutory exemption for buildings constructed before the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code’s effective date applies to swimming pools.

Holding

1. Yes, because Executive Law § 378(2) authorizes the Council to establish standards regarding the condition, maintenance, and safety of existing structures and premises, which includes swimming pools.
2. No, because the act defines “building” as a structure with a roof affording shelter for persons, animals, or property, and a swimming pool does not meet this definition.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that Executive Law § 378(2) grants the Council authority to establish standards for the condition and maintenance of existing buildings, structures, and premises, as well as to safeguard life and property from hazards. The Court noted that the legislative history of § 378(2) confirms its two-fold purpose: general regulations for existing buildings and specific regulations for fire and toxic gas hazards. The Court rejected the argument that § 378(2) only applies to fire and toxic gas hazards, pointing out that many standard building code provisions address safety concerns unrelated to those specific hazards, such as requirements for handrails, lighting on stairs, and elevator safety.

Furthermore, the Court determined that a swimming pool falls under the definition of “structures and premises” as it is an assembly of materials framed of component parts and situated on a parcel of land. The Court referenced the Code’s definitions of premises and structure (9 NYCRR 606.3 [a] [151], [185]) which are consonant with the generally accepted meanings of these terms.

Regarding the exemption, the Court relied on the statutory definition of “building” in Executive Law § 372(3) – “a combination of any materials, whether portable or fixed, having a roof, to form a structure affording shelter for persons, animals or property.” Since a swimming pool lacks a roof and does not provide shelter, the Court concluded that the exemption for pre-Code buildings did not apply. As the Court stated: “A swimming pool is clearly not a building as defined in the act, and the exemption provision, therefore, does not apply.”