Oilville industrial‑park owner raises selective‑enforcement complaint over screening, staff disputes claim

Evan Weiner, identifying himself as representing Big Daddy's Oilville Office Land Holding Corporation, used public comment at the May 6 Goochland County Board of Supervisors meeting to complain that county staff have applied proffers in the Oilville Industrial Park inconsistently and delayed approving screening materials for outdoor storage.

Weiner said his company purchased a parcel in the Oilville Industrial Park in July 2024 that had an approved plan of development (POD) for contractor equipment storage. He told the board that staff reviews and inspections failed to enforce proffers during earlier phases, leaving his parcel the only one now subject to a screening requirement. "It is an abject failure of government to do what they're supposed to do, enforce the law equally and without prejudice or preference," Weiner said.

Weiner said he first submitted a proposed screening material on Sept. 13, 2024, and then resubmitted an amended POD in early April 2025. He asserted staff has not responded within the 15 working‑day period he expected and that the delay forces him to choose between spending roughly $30,000 for screening or losing valuable industrial storage area on land he described as worth about $150,000 per acre. He asked the county to "be part of the solution and treat everyone the same."

Interim County Administrator Manuel Alvarez replied during the meeting, saying county staff and board members have met with Weiner on multiple occasions and that the situation is not solely a record‑keeping or communication lapse. Alvarez said the proposed building Weiner plans to add could trigger requirements tied to new impervious area and other site changes, and he noted staff has discussed the matter with Weiner and has sought to resolve outstanding issues. Alvarez also said a zoning complaint related to Weiner's property had been filed with the county the previous Friday.

Board members and staff described prior meetings with Weiner, and Alvarez said staff have been responsive. Alvarez disputed characterizations that staff had entirely failed to respond, noting prior meetings and communications. Alvarez also noted that school‑bus parking is not subject to the same screening rules Weiner cited.

Weiner asked the board to facilitate timely answers and to consider county assistance in finding an approach that would apply across the business park, including a possible proffer amendment. No formal board action was taken during the meeting; Alvarez and Weiner said they would continue discussions after the public forum.

The transcript shows disagreement between Weiner and county staff about the timeline of submissions and the degree of responsiveness. The issue remained open at the close of the public‑comment period; Weiner said he sought equal treatment and quicker staff responses, and staff said additional regulatory and site‑specific considerations apply.