Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment dismisses notices of violation in GHM Investments appeal after staff missed required disclosures
Summary
The Board of Adjustment voted to dismiss two notices of violation against GHM Investments (AP2026-01), concluding a procedural due-process issue after staff acknowledged failing to provide required administrative materials; the board directed a written decision and staff cautioned dismissal does not relieve permitting requirements.
The Reidsville Board of Adjustment on July 15 dismissed two notices of violation issued to GHM Investments, LLC after appellant counsel argued a statutory due-process violation and staff acknowledged failing to provide required administrative materials before the original hearing.
Appellant counsel (identified in the transcript as Miss Bragg) moved to recuse a board member and then moved to dismiss the notices, arguing that material in the staff packet had been provided to board members before being provided to the appellant and that the packet contained content beyond a neutral timeline. Counsel cited North Carolina quasi-judicial procedures and case law and argued the error could not be cured.
Board counsel explained the hearing is governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. 160D-406 (and related provisions) and advised the board that, in many cases, superior courts remand procedural-error decisions back to the board for another hearing rather than ordering outright dismissal. During the hearing planning director Drew Bigelow acknowledged an internal mistake: "I did I failed to send those documents," and said staff had amended internal policy to ensure required materials will be distributed properly going forward.
The board debated whether the error was curable by rescheduling and whether the content available to members had prejudiced the proceeding. After a recess the board voted to dismiss the notice(s) of violation. Board staff and counsel instructed the board to reduce the decision to writing with findings; staff offered to prepare letterhead and the board attorney offered to draft a proposed order for circulation. Staff also emphasized that the dismissal of the NOV proceeding does not grant development approval and does not eliminate outstanding permit requirements; staff said the city could reissue violations if the underlying site problems are not remedied.
The board set a deadline for the written decision and member input (materials due by Monday the 20th) and agreed the majority who voted to dismiss would prepare a joint written decision, with the option for dissenting members to file separate opinions.
