A proposed development agreement between Brunswick County and developers seeking to create a project with nearly 12,500 homes is scheduled for a public hearing on Monday.

But the hearing might not happen.

Brunswick County Board of Commissioners Chairman Mike Forte on Thursday said he believes the developers could withdraw their proposed development agreement before commissioners consider it “because they (the developers) know it's not going to get approved.” He said board member objections center around infrastructure concerns.

The project covered by the agreement would create nearly 12,500 homes, along with space for schools and commercial development, on over 4,300 acres along Brunswick County's Town Creek and Turkey Creek. Referred to as the Strategic Maco Road Project, it would be bordered by N.C. 87 (Maco Road) and Town Creek Road.

Efforts to reach a representative of Strategic Real Estate Partners LLC, an Atlanta-based firm that has been working with Brunswick County officials during the planning process for the massive community, were not immediately successful Thursday.

The hearing is scheduled for 6 p.m. Monday in the commissioners' chambers of the David R. Sandifer Building, 30 Government Center Drive NE at the Brunswick County Government Center in Bolivia.

County officials said as of 2 p.m. Thursday, the developers had not asked to withdraw the hearing from the schedule.

"The developers would need to notify the county if they would like to pull the proposed development agreement public hearing from the agenda, as the developers were the ones who decided to pursue a possible development agreement for the board’s review and consideration," said Meagan Kascsak, Brunswick County communications director, in an email Thursday afternoon.

According to the development agreement, its purpose is to "facilitate the development of the property in a way that best realizes the public benefits to the parties." It would provide Brunswick County with about 50 acres for a public park, land for emergency services facilities and a water tower site.

In exchange, the developer would receive certainty around the county's development regulations and approval process.

“The development of the property requires a major investment by the developer and/or parcel owner in public facilities, substantial initial investment in on-site and off-site improvements, participation in other programs for public benefit and purposes and substantial commitment of resources to achieve the benefits of the development for the county, developer and parcel owner,” the agreement states. “The developer and parcel owner will be unable to make and realize the benefits from such commitments without the assurances of the county as provided by this agreement."

Commissioner Randy Thompson has expressed his misgivings about the agreement, saying Thursday that the promise of land that could be devoted to public projects doesn’t negate the cost current residents will have to incur to build them.

"Giving land ... is an easy thing to do," he said. "Let's talk about the cost for the infrastructure."

In an email, Thompson shared some examples of cost estimates.  

"A nice park now is about $8-$12 million, plus upkeep. Schools are about $100 million each. An EMS station is about $2.5 million, plus annual staffing and equipment needs. Now let’s talk about water and sewer expansion to handle their development, which should cost well over $100 million. So when the developer comes forward and would like to cover the total cost associated with their impact on services, I’ll become more supportive," he wrote.

After speaking with the developers' attorney, Thompson said on Thursday, "She led me to believe that they wanted to do more outreach with the commissioners and the public concerning this project."

The proposed agreement outlines the specific benefits the developers see for the county and themselves.

According to the proposed agreement, the general benefits to the county from the agreement and development of the property would include, without limitation:

• a) Implementation of the master site plan and furthering the goals of securing an appropriate mix of uses and densities for the property;
• b) Provision of an efficient, effective and practical overall plan for addressing the development of the property, including the protection of natural resources, the provision of open space and parkland, and commitments with respect to paths, sidewalks, roads and other infrastructure improvements;
• c) Increased tax base within the county;
• d) Increased diversity of housing types within the county; and
• e) Substantial commitments to public facilities and amenities to result from development of the property."

The general benefits to be received by the developer and parcel owner from this agreement and development of the property include, without limitation:

• a) Obtaining sufficient certainty, timeliness and predictability in the county's development review and approval process to justify the required substantial initial capital investment for development projects in the property that will require multiple years to complete;
• b) Realization of the opportunity to implement the master site plan for a development that is consistent with the goals and needs of the developer and parcel owner;
• c) Coordination with the county to achieve the public benefits necessary for the development; and
• d) In exchange for providing these benefits to the county, the developer, for itself and the parcel owner, desires to receive the assurance that development projects in the property may proceed in accordance with this agreement."

Also in the draft agreement are conditions that stipulate that the developers "shall have the right to allocate and/or reallocate density and unit counts between parcels, and contemplated non-residential use parcels (or portions thereof) may be converted to residential use parcels, and/or contemplated residential use parcels (or portions thereof) may be converted to non-residential use parcels, in whole or in part; provided, that, in no event shall the dwelling unit density for the overall property exceed 2.9 dwelling units per acre.”

Whatever happens to the agreement, the project could move forward in another way.

"Should the development agreement either be pulled or stay on the agenda and be denied by the board of commissioners, the developers can still opt to go through the more traditional Major Subdivision or Planned Development (PD) route in the future," Kascsak said. "Both of those processes are subject to holding a public hearing at a planning board meeting and getting planning board approval."