Opinion ID: 1917391
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Different from

Text: Finally, we consider the third element of the express prohibition on municipal ordinances: whether the municipal building code provision is different from any provision of the State Building Code. Minn.Stat. § 16B.62, subd. 1. Although the meaning of different from does not require extensive discussion, we do note that different from does not mean in conflict with. For example, in State v. Kuhlman, 729 N.W.2d 577 (Minn.2007), we interpreted the uniformity requirement of the Minnesota Traffic Regulations, which provides that the provisions of Minn.Stat. ch. 169 (2006) shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and that no local authority shall enact or enforce any rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this chapter unless expressly authorized herein. Minn.Stat. § 169.022 (emphasis added). In Kuhlman, we concluded that no conflict exists when an ordinance is merely additional and complementary to a state law and covers specifically what the statute covers generally. 729 N.W.2d at 581. In contrast, under Minn.Stat. § 16B.62, subd. 1, any difference from the State Building Code is prohibited. Thus, even a provision that is merely additional and complementary to a provision in the State Building Code is prohibited.