In re the Analysis of Walsh Trucking Occupancy & Sprinkler System

Citations: 215 N.J. Super. 222; 521 A.2d 883; 1987 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1042

Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; February 19, 1987; New Jersey; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Walsh Trucking Company, which has operated a clothing consolidation and shipping business in North Bergen Township since 1978, installed a multi-tiered rack system for garment handling in its leased building. The existing sprinkler system lacks in-rack sprinklers, posing a fire hazard, as noted by the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC) after Walsh's application for a certificate of occupancy in 1979. Despite Walsh submitting engineering reports asserting the adequacy of their sprinkler system, HMDC's own analysis deemed it insufficient for the new occupancy type created by the rack system, necessitating an in-rack sprinkler installation designed by a qualified engineer. The North Bergen construction official adopted HMDC's findings and ordered compliance with the recommended standards. Walsh appealed this decision, but the Hackensack Meadowlands District Construction Board of Appeals (HMD Board) upheld it following delays in hearing the appeal. Although the court agrees with the HMD Board that construction officials can require compliance with different standards, it found the hearing to be procedurally deficient and has reversed the decision, remanding for a new hearing. The legal framework governing these actions is the State Uniform Construction Code Act.

Subcodes are to adopt the model codes from the Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA), unless the Commissioner identifies "good reasons" to adopt those from another nationally recognized organization. The Commissioner has adopted specific sections of the BOCA code as the fire prevention subcode. According to Section 1704.1 of the BOCA code, water sprinkler systems must comply with the National Fire Protection Association Code (NFPA) Standard 13, which classifies building uses and recommends appropriate sprinkler systems. However, an engineering report found that the appellant’s building use did not fit any categories in NFPA Standard 13, leading to the conclusion that a different standard, Factory Mutual Data Sheet 8-18, should apply.

The HMD Board invoked N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.2(c), which allows construction officials to exercise discretion and deviate from BOCA standards when necessary for safety. This regulation stipulates that any requirement essential for safety that is not specifically covered by the regulations can be determined by the construction official. The appellant contends that since the BOCA code addresses sprinkler systems, the construction official lacked authority to mandate a different system. The appellant interprets N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.2(c) as only permitting deviations when BOCA does not address a subject.

However, the conclusion reached is that this interpretation is overly restrictive. The Commissioner likely recognized that BOCA does not cover every unique building use, warranting flexibility for construction officials to assess fire protection needs on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, where a building use significantly diverges from those specified in the BOCA fire prevention subcode, the construction code official is authorized to establish specific fire prevention requirements. The appellant's assertion of a due process violation due to the lack of objective standards in N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.2(c) was also rejected.

Legislative standards can be expressed in general terms, as recognized by New Jersey courts, which emphasizes the importance of interpreting such standards in light of regulatory goals to prevent administrative arbitrariness. Adequate procedural safeguards can protect against arbitrary actions more effectively than detailed legislative standards. N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.2(c) provides sufficient guidelines for construction officials regarding fire safety requirements not explicitly covered by regulations, stipulating that such requirements must be essential for building safety or occupant safety. The process of appealing a construction official's decision involves a hearing by the construction board of appeals, which offers additional safeguards. 

Although Factory Mutual Data Sheet 8-18 (FM 8-18) is not legally binding as it lacks regulatory adoption, construction officials may consider it when BOCA standards do not apply. The construction official's decision must be based on two factual findings: that the fire safety requirements are not covered by existing regulations and that FM 8-18's requirements are essential for safety. During the appeal process, the appellant presented expert testimony asserting that NFPA 13 is the relevant standard and that the existing sprinkler system is adequate, while no opposing expert testimony was provided. The only significant opposition came from an engineering report by HMDC staff. The HMD Board's hearing was the sole opportunity for the appellant to present their case, highlighting the need for the Board to adhere to procedural requirements for quasi-judicial proceedings.

Requirements for challenging evidence and obtaining adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law were not met in the HMD Board's decision. The applicable regulation, N.J.A.C. 1:1—15.8(b), mandates that there must be legally competent evidence supporting each ultimate finding of fact to ensure reliability and avoid arbitrariness. The Board's decision primarily relied on an engineering report from HMDC staff, yet neither the author nor any witness was available for cross-examination, violating the "residuum" rule. Disputes existed regarding whether the appellant's business operation fell under NFPA 13, with conflicting conclusions from appellant's experts and the HMDC report, which necessitated the opportunity for cross-examination.

The record was disjointed, lacking clarity on the disputed issues, and the absence of testimony left an inadequate basis for reviewing the agency's decision. The Board's findings were insufficient, failing to address the nature of the appellant's business or the reasons why it did not comply with NFPA 13. Adequate findings are crucial for fairness and for appellate review, as emphasized in several court cases. Consequently, the HMD Board's decision was reversed and the case remanded for a new hearing to be completed within 60 days. No certificate of occupancy had been issued to the appellant, who has operated in the building for nine years without explanation. Relevant sections of the National Fire Protection Code were not included in the record, but should be introduced at the remand hearing.