App. 764, 766-67, 381 S.E.2d 349, 350-51 (1989), included general requirements as absolute conditions to be satisfied before a permit could be issued. The distinction between those ordinances and the City’s ordinance here is obvious. While similar but far less language is used in the City Code here, it is present only as a generalized statement of the intent of the specifications that follow. Nowhere does the Asheville City Code require that a developer show the proposal maintains or promotes public health, safety, or welfare before a permit may issue. Asheville’s Code differs significantly from the codes at issue in cases upholding generalized requirements, and this Court cannot rewrite the City’s ordinance. See Wade v. Town of Ayden, 125 N.C. App. 650, 653, 482 S.E.2d 44, 46 (1997) (<HOLDING>). The concerns for safety and convenience are
holding that in construing statute courts must first look to its plain language holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning holding that an appellate court must give a statute its clear and plain meaning when the statute is unambiguous holding that when the contract language is unambiguous we take these words to represent the parties intent and the plain meaning of this language governs its interpretation holding that we must give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of a statutes language