Brunswick supervisors defer Stonewall property sale after residents and local businesses demand transparency

At a September 2024 meeting, the Brunswick County Board of Supervisors deferred a final decision on the proposed disposition of roughly 386 acres known as the Stonewall site after more than a dozen residents, business owners and supervisors raised questions about the sale terms, appraisal comparables and the county’s marketing and negotiation process.

Miss Reynolds, the county’s economic development director, told the board the prospective purchaser had requested confidentiality and that the proposed disposition would allow Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative to extend utilities to a county-leased parcel adjacent to about 2,500 square feet leased by River Street Communications of Virginia. She reported a purchase price of $6,000,000 for the site and said the buyer’s stated end uses included “light industrial, data center potential use, advanced manufacturing” with a claimed capital investment of up to $250,000,000, 500 construction jobs and “50 plus average above average wage jobs at full capacity.”

During public comment, Anne Moore said she had FOIAed the nondisclosure agreement and could find that it was signed only by Miss Reynolds and asked whether the public was being kept too much in the dark. “As a citizen, I shouldn't have to guess,” Moore said. Dennis Roberts, who identified himself as president of Remac Incorporated, said he had negotiated with county staff over two years to purchase a separate 7-acre pad adjacent to his existing business and that he had offered to pay $10,000 per acre; he said county staff later told him the county would not sell the land to him because negotiations with another prospective buyer were moving forward. Roberts told the board, “I will pay the 10,000 an acre.”

Other speakers — including business representatives and residents — questioned the county’s appraisal comparables, water and sewer availability and whether the county would be left responsible for infrastructure costs. One resident with commercial real-estate experience warned the board not to “give it away” and urged a higher per-acre price and clearer commitments on water supply and developer obligations.

In response, a supervisor explained that the county had been in talks with multiple parties over about two years, underscored the responsibility of the economic development director to market the property, and described common business practice that an unsigned offer can be superseded by a higher written offer with an earnest deposit. The chair and county attorney noted the purchase agreement is currently under attorney review and that the public hearing stage captures the statutorily required disclosure of general terms only.

On a motion by Mr. Tyler, seconded by Mr. Owens, the board voted to defer the disposition and to direct staff — including the county attorney and the economic development director — to pose the questions raised at the hearing to the prospective buyer (including whether the 7-acre parcel could be made available to the local business that requested it). The motion carried by voice vote.

The board took no final sale action; supervisors said the purchase contract and any final sale terms will return for board vote once the county attorney and staff complete their review. The public record from the hearing and the staff direction will be part of that later consideration.