WPC= SuH-]B6iz% "̜ PO205y䭁41I]Y-w 䩪QN.xpq2l"$,)*#fKďD 뭏 x?m:pzκΑL,o8y:mk%^ *EuP!OXrFԙF؛u*Rj^ 8N~qƯcUy[Z!p#}V4n-WIA1&Ċ#4=S&3xɲPBK9\iMb#\^  %) 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz  C G[N 0 DE\w: n 0U? 0 0w 0 requiredsprinklersystemsisbasedonour misunderstandingthatthewarehouseswouldhave b* containedtobaccoorothercombustibleproducts.Theyassertthat therewasneveranyevidence N beforethetrialcourtthatthewarehouseswouldbeusedtostoretobaccoorothercombustible : products.Thisargumentmissesthepoint.Thelynchpinofouropinionisthattherecordcontains &  noevidence(1)thattheParksfamilyevertoldanycountyofficialthattobaccoandothercombustible !  materialswouldnotbestoredinthesewarehousesand(2)thattheParksfamilyneversoughta !! waiveroftheautomaticsprinklerrequirementsunderSection402.4.1exception2. "" @) I.  $ $   SteveParksandhisfather,JoeHoustonParks,operatetheColumbiaTobaccoWarehouse, &b"& oneofthetwofederallyapprovedtobaccowarehousesintheareawhenthisdisputearose. #  1      ׀Their 'N#' incomefromoperatingthetobaccowarehousewasdirectlyrelatedtotheamountoftimetheywere r(:$( allowedtoselltobaccoduringthesellingseason. #  2      ׀Theirallocatedsellingtimewas,inturn,directly ^)&%) relatedtotheamountoffederallyapprovedwarehousespacetheyhad availabletoselltobacco. 8 Thus,themoreapprovedwarehousespacetheColumbiaTobaccoWarehousehad available,the $ largeritsshareofthesellingtimewouldbe.    Sometimeinearly1994,SteveParksdiscoveredthattwolargemetalbuildingsonthe   WeatherTamerpropertyweregoingtobetorndowntomakewayforanewautomobile  dealership.Hedecidedthatpurchasingthesebuildingswouldbe,inhiswords,a racehorsedeal   forhisfamily.Buyingthesebuildingsanderectingthemonlandhisfamilyalreadyownedwould  t generateadditionalincomeinthreeways.First,thesebuildingswouldincreasethewarehousespace  `  availabletoselltobaccoandwouldtherebyincreasetheamountofthe_Parkses_Ԁsellingtimeduring  L  the1994tobaccoseason. #  3      ׀Second,Mr.Parksanticipatedincomefromthesaleoftheunused p 8  portionsofthemetalbuildingsasscrap.Third,Mr.Parksanticipatedthatthefamilycouldreceive \$  incomebyrentingthewarehousesfollowingthe1994tobaccoseason. H    Mr.Parkssprimaryinterestinpurchasingthesebuildingswastheprospectthattheycould    beusedtoincreasetheamountofsellingtimeallocatedtotheColumbiaTobaccoWarehouseduring    the1994season.Heunderstoodthatthebuildingswouldnothavethiseffectunlesshewasableto  disassemblethem,erectthemonhisfamilysproperty,andhavetheminspectedandapprovedby  thefederalgovernmentbeforethetobaccosellingseasonbeganinNovember. #  4      ׀Accordingly,he  determinedthaterectionofthesewarehousesonhisfamilyspropertymustcommencebyAugust  atthelatest. p   Mr.Parksandhisfatherdecidedtobuildthesewarehousesonfamilypropertythathad H alreadybeenenhancedbytheconstructionofabridgeandroadimprovementspaidforbythestate l4 andcountygovernments.Theyknewthatthelargestremainingobstacletodevelopingtheproperty X  wasthelackofanadequatewatersupply.Infact,theinadequatewatersupplycouldcomplicate D  rezoningthepropertytoanM1(lightindustrial)classificationEh #  5      ׀andcouldalsoimpairtheirability 0 tocomplywithapplicablefiresafetycodes.Theyalsoknewthattheydidnotintendtoincurthe  expenseofrunninganadequatewatersupplytotheproperty.Accordingly,inApril1994,Mr.Parks  andhisfathermetwithMs.Langsdontodiscusshowtheycouldsolvetheirwaterproblem.    InMs.Langsdon,Mr.Parksandhisfatherpickedtherightlocalofficialtotalkto.In   additiontobeingthelocalbuildingofficialchargedwiththeenforcementoftheStandardBuilding !  Code,sheservedasthestafftotheMauryCountyRegionalPlanningCommission.Thecommission "l! wasrequiredtomakerecommendationstotheMauryCountyCommissionregardingallzoning 8 classificationchanges,andthecountycommissionplacedgreatweightontherecommendationsof $ theplanningcommission.    AsaresultoftheirconversationswithMs.Langsdon,Mr.Parksandhisfatherreluctantly  agreedthatnomorethanfivepersonswouldoccupyeachofthebuildingsinordertoavoidany  obstaclethatthelackofwatermightbetotheirrezoningrequest. #  6      ׀Theyneitherproposednoragreed   toanyotherrestrictiononthefutureuseofthewarehouses.Ms.Langsdonhadthediscretionto  t waivetheautomaticsprinklerrequirementforcertainonestorybuildings wherenoncombustible  ` productsaremanufacturedorstored.;( #  7      ׀However,thereisnoevidenceinthisrecordthatMr.Parks  L  everrequestedMs.Langsdontograntawaiverunderthisexceptionorthatheeverformallyagreed p 8  withanyresponsiblecountyofficialtorestricttheitemsthatcouldpermissiblybestoredinthe \$  buildings.Infact,alltheevidenceintherecordpointsintheotherdirection. H    Mr.ParkstestifiedthathenevertoldMs.Langsdonthatheandhisfatherintendedtostore    tobaccoorothercombustiblematerialsinthebuildings.Trueenough.However,neitherhe,norhis    father,noranyoftheothermembersofhisfamilyevertestifiedthattheytoldMs.Langsdon,orany  othercountyofficialforthatmatter,whattheyintendedtousethewarehousesfor.Ms.Langsdons  testimonythatMr.Parkswas nebulousaboutthefutureuseofthebuildingsissubstantiatedbythe  workingdescriptionofthedevelopmentthroughouttheproceedings.BoththeParksfamilyandthe  localofficialsconsistentlydescribedthedevelopmentasa generalwarehousing,wholesaling,and p storagebusiness.Onatleastoneoccasion,asurveyoremployedbytheParksfamilydescribedthe \ warehousesas specbuildings,and,evenattrial,the_Parkses_Ԁlawyerreferredtothesewarehouses H as specbuildings._  #  8      _ l4   ThetrialcourtneverfoundthattheParksfamilyaskedMs.Langsdonforanexceptionunder D  Section402.4.1exception2.Rather,thetrialcourtfoundthattheParksfamilywereseeking 0 approvaltosubstituteaperformancebondfortherequiredautomaticsprinklersystembasedontheir  promisetoinstalltherequiredsprinklersystemassoonasthepropertyhadanadequatewatersupply.  WeagreewiththetrialcourtscharacterizationoftheParksfamilysproposal.Wealsoconclude 8 thatthisproposalisentirelyinconsistentwithapurerequestforawaiverofthesprinklerrequirement $ underSection402.4.1exception2.HadtheParksfamilybeenproceedingunderthatexception,  therewouldneverhavebeenafutureneedforsprinklersorforabond.    TheevidencesuggestsatleasttworeasonswhyMr.Parksandhisfatherdidnotseeka  waiverofthesprinklerrequirementpursuanttoSection402.4.1exception2.Togetsuchawaiver,   theywouldhavebeenrequiredtoagreetorestrictallfutureuseofthebuildingsto occupancies  t wherenoncombustibleproductsaremanufacturedorstored.Hadtheyagreedtothatrestriction,  ` theywouldnothavebeenabletorepresentthatthesewarehouseswere availableforthesaleor  L  storageoftobaccobecausetobaccoisextremelycombustible.? #  9      ׀Thus,obtaininganexceptionunder p 8  Section402.4.1exception2wouldhavejeopardizedtheireffortstoincreasetheirsellingtimeduring \$  1994.Second,userestrictionsonthebuildings,whencoupledwiththesevereoccupancyrestrictions H  thattheParksfamilyhadalreadyagreedto,wouldhavefurtherunderminedtheattractivenessofthis 4  spaceasrentalpropertyfollowingthe1994tobaccoseason.    @) II.     Insummary,weagreethatthereisnoevidenceintherecordthattheParksfamilytoldMs.  Langsdonthattheyplannedtostoretobaccoorothercombustiblematerialsinthesebuildings.  However,theabsenceofthisevidencehasnobearingonwhethertheParksfamilyprovedthatMs. p Langsdoninfringedupontheirpropertyinterestprotectablebysubstantivedueprocess.Theydid \ notseekfromMs.LangsdonaSection_402.4.1_Ԁexception2waiveroftheautomaticsprinkler H requirement.Instead,theywantedtotemporarilybondofftheautomaticsprinklerrequirements l4 withoutanyrestrictionontheuseofthebuildings.WhileMs.Langsdonmayhavehaddiscretion X  togranttheformer,shehadnoauthorityundertheStandardBuildingCodetograntthelatter. D  Accordingly,wereaffirmourconclusionthattheSection1983claimsofParksPropertiesand 0 ColumbiaWarehouses,Inc.mustbedismissedbecausetheyfailedtoprovethattheyhada  protectablepropertyinterestinconstructingthewarehouseswithoutautomaticsprinklers.     `     h     _____________________________ !     `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE