Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Business owner accuses Goochland staff of selective enforcement over industrial-park screening; county disputes
Summary
At the public-comment period, business owner Evan Weiner alleged staff repeatedly failed to require or verify proffered screening in the Oilville Industrial Park, creating selective enforcement; Interim County Administrator Manuel Alvarez replied that staff had met with the owner and that some issues predate current staff.
During the public comment portion of the May 6 Goochland County Board of Supervisors meeting, business owner Evan Weiner said his company purchased a parcel in the Oilville Industrial Park that carried an approved plan-of-development (POD) requiring screening for outdoor storage. He told the board the approved screening was not installed across most parcels and accused county staff of neglecting to require or verify compliance.
"Staff has created this problem by failing over and over again to enforce the proffers at various phases of their involvement," Weiner said. "It is an abject failure of government to do what they're supposed to do, enforce the law equally and without prejudice or preference." He said he had repeatedly tried to get responses by email and asked the county to be "part of the solution" rather than forcing him to sacrifice valuable industrial land to install screening that others had not been required to install.
Interim County Administrator Manuel Alvarez responded from the podium, disputing Weiner's characterization in part and saying some relevant events were carried out by staff who were no longer with the county. Alvarez said staff and Weiner had met multiple times, including on-site, and that certain proposed changes (for example, adding a building or new impervious area) could trigger additional review under current zoning rules. Alvarez also noted the county had received a zoning complaint against Weiner's property last Friday.
Board members allowed brief back-and-forth remarks but did not take formal action on Weiner's request during the meeting. Chair Winfrey said staff and the owner should continue to work together. Weiner said he sought fair, consistent enforcement and timely staff responses and asked that the county either assist in a community meeting to seek solutions or consider an amendment to the proffers for the subdivision.
The exchange did not produce an immediate directive recorded on the record; the board closed public comment and moved on to the next business item. The transcript shows the dispute centered on questions of process (timely staff responses, the adequacy of plan review and whether inspections confirmed proffer compliance) rather than on a final determination of code compliance.
