Board of Adjustment continues GHM Investments appeal after staff failed to share materials with attorney

On June 17, 2026, the Rockingham County Board of Adjustment voted to continue an appeal by GHM Investments LLC of two notices of violation alleging unpermitted clear-cutting and removal of a required tree buffer. The board took the action after hearing that certain administrative materials were distributed to board members but were not provided to the appellant’s attorney, a lapse counsel said created an incurable due-process violation.

The hearing centered on whether the failure to provide the same materials to the appellant’s counsel undermined the fairness of the proceeding. The city attorney cited North Carolina General Statute 160D-406 and told the board it could either dismiss the notices or continue the matter to allow both sides to present evidence at a later date. The appellant’s representative read a statement from counsel arguing that "the only remedy is to dismiss all of these pending violations." The appellant, Mr. Martin, also told the board his attorney had been instructed not to appear because of the procedural issue.

City staff acknowledged the omission. After being sworn, a staff member identified in the record as Drew said, "I did not send it to his attorneys. I was unaware of the requirement to do so. It was an oversight on my part and on staff's part." He told the board the missing materials likely included the staff memo and two photographs that had been prepared as exhibits for presentation.

Board members debated whether the error could be cured by continuing the hearing or whether the failure to provide materials had already caused irreparable harm to the appellant’s rights. One participant summarized the concern bluntly: "you can't unring the bell," an attorney phrase used in the discussion to describe alleged, already-committed procedural harm. The city attorney told the board that past bodies had both continued matters and, in some cases, found the procedural error required dismissal; he left the decision to the board’s discretion.

A motion to continue the case to the board’s next regular meeting was made and seconded; James Mley seconded the motion. The board voted by raised hands to continue the hearing to July 15, 2026, to allow staff to provide the full administrative packet to the appellant’s counsel and for both sides to present evidence. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned.

Next steps: the appeal will resume at the Board of Adjustment meeting on July 15, 2026, when staff is expected to distribute the previously withheld materials and both sides may present evidence; the appellant’s counsel may reassert any due-process objections at that time.