Goochland appeals board upholds stop-work order against Big Daddy’s Oilville project

The Goochland County Board of Building Code Appeals on May 6 upheld a March 6 notice of violation and accompanying stop-work order issued by the county building official against Big Daddy’s Oilville Office Land Holding Corporation for work at 1164 Tri County Drive in Oilville.

Appellant Evan Weiner, managing member of Big Daddy’s, told the board his company had proceeded after receiving approval for the exterior pre-engineered metal building. He argued the stop-work order and notice of violation were deficient because "the stop work order... does not include any instructions about what we need to do to resolve the issues." Weiner said interior plans had been submitted with the permit application and that the county’s later rejection was not communicated to him before interior framing began.

County attorney Tara McGee and Building Official Casey Littlefield replied that the county’s record — including 32 documented items submitted in the administrative record — showed repeated requests for missing information, rejected interior plans and stalled communications. McGee said the county had "responded professionally in this permit application over the course of several years" and described emails in February 2026 in which the appellant refused to provide certain corrections and revoked permission for county employees to enter the property.

Littlefield described the timeline: an application and exterior PEMB (pre-engineered metal building) plans submitted in 2024, exterior plans approved in April 2025, and separate interior plans that were later rejected in January–February 2026. He testified staff issued the notice of violation and stop-work order after communications stalled, corrective items were not submitted, and county entry to inspect the site was limited. Littlefield also cited documentation (exhibit 29) showing the NOV and stop-work order were posted on site.

Technical disputes centered on soils and footings, compaction verification for a rock-dust infill, and whether third-party inspection reports documented required measures such as compaction lifts and torque for truss bolts. The engineering soils report in the administrative record recommends a minimum footing bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot; the approved exterior building plans call for 1,500 PSF, prompting questions about verification and documentation of the in-fill.

Both sides acknowledged that mistakes and miscommunications occurred: Littlefield said an initial interior-layout review had been delayed and should have been completed sooner; Weiner said he had not been informed the interior plans lacked an approval stamp and apologized for his confrontational tone in email exchanges. Still, county counsel and staff told the board that the appellant’s revocation of inspector access and failure to submit approvable third-party reports prompted issuance of the NOV and stop-work order.

Votes at a glance: The board voted on two motions to uphold the building official’s decisions related to the two appeals heard together. Both motions were moved and seconded and passed on roll call with Mr. Duke, Mr. Dudy and Mr. Miller voting in the affirmative (recorded as “I” votes); the motions were carried unanimously by the three-member panel present.

What happens next: The permit remains on hold while the NOV and stop-work order stand. County staff said removal of the stop-work order is possible if the appellant submits the documentation and third-party reports the building official requires and the county determines compliance. The board closed the hearing and adjourned.