Bully pulpit

Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt is scheduled to moderate a panel discussion on bullying, Nancy Oatesfollowing the screening of the documentary “Bully” at East Chapel Hill High School on Oct. 13. As Town Council doesn’t meet that Monday night, I hope many council members will attend. After watching recent Town Council public hearings, particularly on the controversial Ephesus-Fordham redevelopment, I think the mayor and some of his colleagues could stand to learn about the harm done by bullies and learn other ways to handle their frustrations.

All of us, except maybe Derek Jeter, have bullied at one time or another. My bully awakens when I know I’m losing and I’ve exhausted all other options. That’s when my Inner Mean Girl shows up. Admittedly, sometimes editors pay me to have her make an appearance in print, and I’m never one to turn down a quick buck. But that doesn’t make my bullying OK.

Wearing proper business attire and sitting behind a town official nameplate doesn’t excuse bullying, either. I’ve heard council members bully one another and speak disdainfully to members of the public with whom they disagree.

Perhaps some council members believe that all’s fair in development and taxes. Those of us who watch Town Council public hearings on development issues have seen one developer respond to council resistance with an anger-reddened face and raised voice and sometimes a fist slammed on the podium. I can’t think of a time that developer did not get his way. I also recall developers who have behaved more circumspectly. They generally leave the meetings loaded down with requirements to pay for extra perks the town can’t even bring itself to ask the strident developer to cover.

As human beings, we don’t need another excuse to justify our own misbehavior. If it’s too hard to look in the mirror to find examples of bullying, just look around you. Regulators that look the other way when businesses cheat undocumented workers out of wages. State laws that prevent same-sex marriage. Countries that kill one another’s citizens because each country claims ownership of a swath of land. All believe, passionately, that they are right. But that doesn’t make their abuse of power OK.

All of Chapel Hill’s Town Council members have been endowed with greater intellectual abilities than average. And Kleinschmidt and Sally Greene have been trained by some of the top professors in the legal field on how to win arguments. Kleinschmidt is so good at winning arguments that people pay him to do it for them. And when he’s sitting on the dais in Town Hall, he has the authority to have the last word in any discussion. With all of these advantages stacked in his favor, why would he ever need to bully his colleagues?

Discerning the difference between standing up for what you believe and tearing down others through bullying may not be easy. Before he speaks to the teens, I hope Kleinschmidt will go back through some of the council videos and pull out instances where he or his colleagues have bullied others. I hope he introspects, so that he can explain to those kids who are in the process of firming up their own moral codes how each instance could have been handled without bullying.
– Nancy Oates

by on October 6, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Ethics
Posted by Nancy Oates on October 6, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/10/06/bully-pulpit/

Downside of up-zoning

I give credit to Arctic explorer Robert Peary for words that have been guiding Nancy Oatesprinciples in my life: “Find a way, or make one,” and, more frequently, “Do it now.”

So I share the impatience of many residents of Rogers Road who want water and sewer service extended to that area, like we promised we’d do, what, 40 years ago, in exchange for them putting up with the landfill in their backyards that has tainted some of their wells.

But it’s a complicated affair, and Town Council heard an update of progress at a public hearing on Sept. 8, and will pick up the topic again in two weeks.

The Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood is located in the Joint Planning Area, which means that Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County have to agree on what needs to be done and follow a formula for who pays how much for what. Chapel Hill has proposed changing the neighborhood from a JPA to an ETJ, an Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction. That would give Chapel Hill sole planning authority over the neighborhood and allow the town to spend more money on improvements, not only extending OWASA service but building a school as development creeps ever northward.

Extending water and sewer that far out of town would cost the town millions of dollars, and once the lines are out there, would cost residents thousands of dollars to extend the lines from the street to their homes. Even so, minister Robert Campbell, a Rogers Road resident and community organizer, urged council to take action on converting the area to ETJ status.

But voting yes for the ETJ comes with a serious drawback: ETJ residents are subject to Town Council’s development decisions but can’t vote council members in or out of office.
Once that area of town north of Eubanks Road has OWASA service, the land becomes much more attractive to developers, which raises its value. And no one could blame Rogers Road residents for selling to developers and retiring comfortably to Mebane. But if residents choose to remain in what is now an affordable neighborhood close to town, they likely will face what many of us in neighborhoods closer to the center of town now contend with: council members approving massive commercial development that increases traffic, the risk of flooding and their property tax bills.

Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, a lawyer and former educator, wanted to make sure Rogers Road residents were made aware of the tradeoffs. Judy Johnson of the town’s planning department assured him that the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association and the Jackson Center would reach out to residents to allow them to make informed choices.

If it’s any consolation to Rogers Road residents, council rarely listens to those of us who can vote for or against them, either.
– Nancy Oates

by on September 29, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 29, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/09/29/downside-of-up-zoning/

Courtyards dissed

What do some members of Town Council have against the 20 percent of Chapel Nancy OatesHill residents who are at least 55 years old? Last Monday night, the developers of Courtyards at Homestead presented their proposal for an age-restricted community of 63 moderately priced one-level cottages clustered on 18 acres that back up to Carolina North along Homestead Road. (The Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 allows age-restricted communities that do not provide special assistance to the elderly.)

At the concept review in February, council overall gave encouragement to the Ohio-based developer Epcon Communities, which has built a few similar projects geared toward empty-nesters in the Triangle. But at the Special Use Permit public hearing last week, with a third of the council out and the mayor powering through back pain, the loudest voices on council objected to the age restriction.

At the February concept review, George Cianciolo, Matt Czajkowski, Sally Greene and Ed Harrison voiced support for making the development age-restricted rather than simply “targeting” older homeowners. Their reasons: An age-restricted community would not add more children to the school system, and at present, Chapel Hill residents who want to downsize to a cottage-home community have to move out of town. The proposal moved through the advisory board process with no age restriction. (Planning Commission members might be unnerved that a major component of the plan was changed after they reviewed and approved the project in August.)

The only point of contention at the Concept Review came from Epcon wanting to make a payment-in-lieu instead of designating 15 percent of the units as affordable housing. The development is the first proposal for single-family homes since the town enacted its Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance in 2010.

To comply with Inclusionary Zoning, Epcon would need to make nine units affordable, which would entail selling those homes at a loss, and no bank would lend Epcon money to build those houses. But Epcon found a way to make three units affordable and still have enough cash to make a payment-in-lieu equivalent to 4.45 houses.

So when the first words out of Maria Palmer’s mouth after Epcon wrapped up its presentation were, “I’m very disappointed,” my heart fell. She and Jim Ward were adamant that the age restriction be lifted. In fact, Palmer wanted Epcon to add special sidewalks for the visually impaired.

Epcon had gone to great lengths to bring back a proposal that fit what council members had asked for, and Epcon’s president was chagrined that council now seemed to be changing its mind. The apparent flip-flop made Form-Based Code seem appealing. And I wouldn’t be so leery about FBC if the development decisions weren’t made by a town manager who acts like a puppy who thinks developers have a ball. Did anyone ask East West Partners to pay for sidewalks for the visually impaired? No, the town manager volunteered to pick up the tab for a private road for East West Partners for a project that will cost taxpayers money.

Epcon has a choice about where to build, Czajkowski reminded his colleagues. If council puts up too many obstacles, Epcon could build just outside of town, leaving 20 percent of town residents to age out of Chapel Hill.
– Nancy Oates

by on September 22, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 22, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/09/22/courtyards-dissed/

Safety or spin?

In early September, eight members of the town’s communications team won national Nancy Oatesawards for two public relations pieces they produced. The City-County Communications & Marketing Association bestowed Silver Circle Awards for the “Mayors Innovation Project Video” in the category of Promotional Videos and the “CaPA How-To Guides” in the Internal Printed Publications category. The video was to be shown to visiting mayors at the small convention last month that Chapel Hill taxpayers hosted but were prevented from attending, as were members of the media. CaPA stands for Communications and Public Affairs; the publication was geared to town staff.

Chapel Hill communications manager Catherine Lazorko and her colleagues do an excellent job of making the town look good, so it’s no surprise they brought home the prizes, well, more accurately, were named winners. The communications staff did not attend the awards ceremony in Minneapolis.

What niggles at me is that the Communications Department has at least eight staff members. The Inspections Department has only six positions, and not all of those are filled. Town manager Roger Stancil’s implemented budget employs a third more people to make the town look good than it does to ensure that buildings in town are safe.

That “To seem, rather than to be” motif also appears in the town’s propensity to pass ordinances without following through on enforcement. The town budget funds two positions for code enforcement. Both are vacant, and neither even has been advertised. Evidently, the town manager has no intention of filling them in the near future.

“Show me your budget, and I’ll show you your values,” the old saying goes. The proposed 2014-15 town budget recommended 7.5 full-time positions for Communications and 12 for Inspections, but nearly a quarter of the way into the fiscal year, Inspections lags woefully behind its goals.

Town Council is to conduct Roger Stancil’s job performance review later this month. Let’s hope council prods the town manager to implement the budget council passed.
– Nancy Oates

by on September 15, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Budget, Council Members, Spending, Town staff
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 15, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/09/15/safety-or-spin/

Who wins?

You can’t make this stuff up. The Urban Land Institute of the Triangle lists Timber Hollow Nancy OatesApartments as a nominee to win an award for affordable housing. Ron Strom of Blue Heron Asset Management self-nominated his project, which Blue Heron sold to Eller Capital (after pocketing nearly $6 million profit from his $12.6 million investment that the investors held for 18 months, according to Orange County records). Triangle ULI also chose Roger Perry over Clay Grubb for a prestigious Community Builder Award.

Eller Capital bought Timber Hollow, Foxcroft and Timberlyne, three relatively affordable apartment complexes, earlier this year, spruced up some of them, jacked up the rents and stopped accepting Section 8 vouchers, effectively booting out longtime residents who relied on the government subsidy for decent housing. In short, Eller has done more to eliminate affordable housing in Chapel Hill than any developer we’ve seen in a long time. Yet if the audience at the ULI awards banquet selects Timber Hollow, someone from Eller will go on stage to accept the award.

Though Dwight Bassett, Chapel Hill’s economic development officer, sits on the awards committee, he did not nominate nor decide the winners. The seven-member jury selecting the winners has only two members on it well-versed in building and planning.

“Timber Hollow Affordable Housing,” as ULI bills it, stems from a density bonus Town Council granted Strom in exchange for renting, for 30 years, the 14 additional units at a rate affordable to people earning no more than 80 percent of the federally set Area Median Income, which happens to be more than the rent on Timber Hollow apartments at the time. Town attorney Ralph Karpinos admitted the deal may not be legal. And stipulations in the Special Use Permit allow Timber Hollow to rent the units at full market rate if a “qualified” tenant is not found within 30 days, a loophole that allows the complex owner to avoid renting out any units at below-market-rate rent.

With the “affordable” density bonus, Eller will reap millions in additional rent from those extra units. Eller will make millions more by displacing dozens of working-class renters from Timber Hollow and his other two complexes by raising the rents.

At the same awards banquet, Roger Perry is set to receive the J.W. Willie York Community Builder Award. Granted, Perry has produced some good projects in town in decades past. But his competition for the award included Clay Grubb of Glen Lennox redevelopment fame, the gold standard for redevelopment in Chapel Hill. Grubb is the type of developer we want to attract. He worked with the community to come up with a redevelopment plan that preserves workforce and senior rental housing, adds office and retail space that will be tax revenue positive, and showed respect for ecology and the environment, even though it cost him some profit.

The Town of Chapel Hill is listed as the lead sponsor for ULI’s awards banquet on Sept. 25. Coincidentally, Perry’s East West Partners was the lead sponsor on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce’s recent State of the Community presentation. Perry is chomping at the bit to implement his vision for Obey Creek held up by procedural disagreements with a community committee appointed by Town Council. Clay Grubb, on the other hand, quite likely won’t take on another massive development in town.

All of this seems a little too cozy for my comfort. What does this say about the direction town officials want development to go in Chapel Hill?

The awards dinner invitation promises “delicious food and good laughs,” the latter evidently coming from the list of people and projects being honored. Tickets for nonmembers are $135, in case you want to cast a ballot.
— Nancy Oates

by on September 8, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Economic development, Ethics, Housing, Land Use, Politics
Tagged , , , ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 8, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/09/08/who-wins/

Hurry up and wait

Whether you’re building a multistory apartment complex or adding a deck to Nancy Oatesyour home, your budget and timetable hinge on the Inspections Department. The mayor would have us believe the SUP process is responsible for the high cost of development in Chapel Hill. Builders will tell you the cost impact of the Inspections bottleneck. The delays have gotten so bad that the Home Builders Association of Durham, Orange and Chatham Counties has stepped in to press for change.

Over the more than 15 years I’ve been writing real estate stories for the N&O and the Chapel Hill News, builders have been telling me stories about the town’s Inspections Department that would be funny if they didn’t cost property owners so much money and at times put public safety at risk. Stories of delays that leave construction businesses sitting idle and business openings postponed, and incidents of drive-by inspections that could lead to safety issues if shoddy work is signed off on.

For years, builders have been hesitant to speak up about the problems for fear of retribution from inspectors. All work on a construction project must stop until the inspector approves work completed at various stages. Complain up the chain of command about waiting weeks for a permit that in nearby municipalities is a walk-in, walk-out transaction, or about never knowing when an inspector will appear, and you could find out just how slow to show up an inspector can get.

But Inspections oversight had a change of leadership recently, and so did the HBADOC. Holly Fraccaro, HBADOC’s new CEO and executive vice president, reached out to Mary Jane Nirdlinger, the town’s new executive director of planning and sustainability, to set up some meetings to start talking about solutions.

Most of the problems can be traced to the department being chronically understaffed. People in the know tell me that back in the 1980s the town had eight inspectors in the field. But for the past 10 years or more, the number of inspector positions had dwindled to half that. Nirdlinger said the department now has five inspectors, one of whom does plan reviews, plus a manager licensed to do inspections.

Compare that to Orange County. Last year the town and the county each had about $100 million in construction that required permits. The county has seven field inspectors, cross-trained in all trades, and two plan reviewers. The town has been paying county inspectors to help with the backlog. Some developers pay for inspectors to work overtime. Nirdlinger said she is interviewing to hire another plan reviewer and another inspector.

Fraccaro said that’s a good start, providing the new hires have Level 3 licenses (able to inspect any building of any size) and the existing inspectors can be brought up to Level 3.

The county has three full-time staff to issue the 2,800 permits applied for last year. The town has one permit technician and an apprentice.

Nirdlinger said Town Council has to approve all added positions. Sally Greene said she is aware of the problems in Inspections because Roger Stancil has kept council informed. But apparently for years neither Stancil nor council chose to shift any additional resources to help out tax-paying property owners hurt by the delays.

The Planning Department, twice the size of Inspections, has approved several new construction projects of late, and more are in the offing. Fraccaro said she hopes that a partnership between the HBA and Inspections can bring about some badly needed modifications.
– Nancy Oates

by on September 1, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Land Use, Town staff
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 1, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/09/01/hurry-up-and-wait/

DHIC project DOA for now

Last week, the N.C. Housing Finance Agency announced its list of tax credit Nancy Oateswinners for affordable housing projects. DHIC was not on it. Recall that Town Council had agreed to sell 8.5 acres of vacant cemetery land to DHIC for $100 if the nonprofit would build workforce and affordable senior apartments there. DHIC said it would do so if it got a state grant, and council used DHIC’s grant application deadline as an excuse to push through the poorly thought-out Ephesus-Fordham form-based code.

Then DHIC failed to include a letter of financial commitment in its application package, and the state tossed it out as incomplete.

So, what’s next? Loryn Clark, executive director of the town’s Office of Housing and Community, said it’s up to council members to decide what to do with the land now. The presumably mortified DHIC isn’t talking, but Clark said she believes DHIC plans to resubmit its application next year.

That’s another year’s delay in providing workforce housing. DHIC won’t proceed with the project without the grant, and the grants are “extremely competitive,” a DHIC press release said in February. Chapel Hill, with its high Area Median Income, doesn’t engender much sympathy as an underserved community, leaving us with the likelihood that next year at this time, DHIC will not get the grant and will abandon the project altogether.

Builders I’ve communicated with don’t rule out the possibility that the project could be done without a grant, providing the town throws in the land for free and maybe some other entitlements. Infrastructure costs, impact fees, utility connections, red tape and delays from town staff and concessions to Town Council all contribute to the expense of construction. But there is precedent for the town and council to mitigate some of these costs.

For instance, the town could partner with a for-profit developer, as it did with RAM Development in making 140 West happen, by offering a 99-year leasehold for $1. The town went on to give RAM several other concessions, including more than $7 million for parking, and toxic-waste site cleanup that we may still paying for, about 7 years later. The town could also offer to use taxpayer money to build roads for the project, a perk it offered Roger Perry to develop his for-profit venture of luxury apartments in Ephesus-Fordham. Because the cemetery property has been rezoned already and is part of the expedited approval that form-based code secures, a developer would not suffer any extra expense of dickering to make council members happy.

If Town Council is serious about creating workforce or affordable senior housing, it has options. And I’d be willing to bet, not a single community member would rise up in opposition.
– Nancy Oates

by on August 25, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in 140 West, Council Members, Housing, Land Use, Roads, Town staff
Tagged , ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on August 25, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/08/25/dhic-project-doa-for-now/

Real estate sales 8/11/14-8/15/14

Sean Michael and Heather Dawn Delaney bought 100 Brighton Court from Joseph Rickard and Gloria Beissinger for $490,000.
Mao Mao bought 111 Vintage Drive from Robert L. and Virginia W. Gilliam for $296,500.
Zili Zhang and Yong Peng bought 103 Dairy Court from Guy and Rhonda Dear for $400,000.
Taylor T. Ra and Yu Yu Maw bought 101 Friar Lane, Carrboro, from Kimberly Petermann Monahan and Thomas William Monahan IV for $109,000.
Kimberly Herold bought 411 Waterside Drive, Carrboro, from James S. Mette and Barbara Brister for $349,000.
Daniel Matute and Kacy Gordon bought 102 Downing Court from Jane Ann Hoppin for $262,000.
Rukmini and Suresh Balu bought 1028 Pinehurst Drive from David W. and Aimee K. Zaas for $770,000.
Katherine Cord and William Hunter Walton and Virginia Pereria Dirschl bought 704 Sprunt St. from Laurie P. and Mark Oakley for $537,000.
Bryan C. and Elizabeth C. Kempter bought 2700 Winningham Road from Lawrence A. Petersen for $160,000.
Jasper and Patricia Seres bought 109 Turtleback Crossing Drive from Cheng-Chun and Chun-Pi Chang for $580,000.
John and Randi Klein bought 205 Stoneybrook Road from Christopher and Melissa Teuton for $465,000.
Ken Gorfkle bought 1436 Poinsett Drive from Thomas F. Roberts Jr., Angela Clemmons-Roberts and Dayna Jo Kelly and Ronald Martin Webster for $172,500.
Chay Tanna and Scott Immel bought 1023 Northridge Lane from Bruce L. and Cynthia C. Runberg for $1.23 million.
Yingzi Li bought 123 Johnson St., units A&B, from Todd R. and Meredith M. Bolon for $394,000.
William Rathbun bought 103-A Sue Ann Court, Carrboro, from Andrea Shaw for $149,000.
Joshua Scott Craig and Abigail Williams Lehman bought 409 Legends Way from Kristen E. Hensley for $150,000.
Larry Dean Farrell and Carmen Cuthbertson bought 504 Copperline Drive from Susan A. Lombardo for $324,000.
Carl R. Fox bought 207 Chateau Place from James T. and Laurel B. Brooks for $327,500.
David S. and Courtney G. Naismith bought 902 Bayberry Drive from Richard and Lyda Mihalyi for $850,000.
Susan K. and Werner Martin bought 642 W. Barbee Chapel Road from Frederic H. and Diana M. Chaffee for $515,000.
John and Ericka Lewis Gualtieri bought 308 Laurel Ave., Carrboro, from Suzanne K. Lewis for $265,000.
Joseph Michael and Angela Denise Marques bought 104 Portsmith Place from June E. Weatherley for $299,000.
Jonathan B. and Valerie P. Womer bought 112 Village Lane from David A. and Karen S. Kolenberg for $365,000.
Karen Sapp bought 217-A Hillsborough Road, Carrboro, from Joseph R. and Rebekah S. Thompson and Billie Thompson and L. Warren Ray for $275,000.
Thomas A. and Tracy B. Rexrode bought 105 Mel Oaks Drive from Steven J. and Rose G. Krasnow for $307,500.
Peter Sylvester bought 436 Cedar Club Circle from Marjorie T. Coxe for $216,000.
Anthony J. and Kristen B. Parker bought 102 Grainger Lane from David T. and Lizanne M. Connelley for $510,000.

by on August 22, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Housing
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on August 22, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/08/22/real-estate-sales-81114-81514/

Section 8 crisis

The old joke goes that former first lady Nancy Reagan followed up her “Just Nancy OatesSay No” drug abuse prevention program by tackling homelessness, with “Just Get a House.”

Making decent housing available to people even in the lowest socio-economic categories has no simple solutions. Earlier this month the mayors of Chapel Hill and Carrboro staged a press conference to air their concerns that a number of apartment complex owners will no longer accept Section 8 vouchers. Section 8 is a federal program that makes up the rent difference between what qualified low-income renters can pay and the government’s determination of fair market rent for the area (which is lower than developers’ rent expectations). Because some apartment complex owners decided recently to stop accepting Section 8, about 60 leaseholders in Chapel Hill and Carrboro will have to move once their current lease expires.

In Chapel Hill, some of the affordable housing crisis is of the town leaders’ own making. When Town Council approved a density bonus for Timber Hollow Apartments in April, council members declined to consider linking it to Timber Hollow accepting some Section 8 vouchers. In fact, council approved an SUP with so many loopholes that none of the apartments intended to be rented at a discount as workforce housing will ever be rented at less than market rate.

Council followed that up with its approval of form-based code in the Ephesus-Fordham redevelopment, knowing that hundreds of low-income apartments would be demolished and replaced with luxury units.

Chapel Hill’s economic development officer cuts council members some slack in their development approval decisions. If council were to layer on conditions that eat into developers’ profits, developers might just go elsewhere rather than knuckle under to council’s demands. Bassett said he sees a desire on council’s part for Chapel Hill to be a socio-economically balanced place, but “there’s a disconnect in arriving at that destination.” He plans to involve council in some work sessions in the coming year on housing and economic trends in the area over the past 30 years. “Many failures and unanticipated consequences have come from not thinking policy through,” he said.

A2Z Realty manages some Section 8 units, and Judy Tripp, A2Z’s rental housing specialist, said those units have to be inspected every year and meet Section 8 standards, which don’t seem too restrictive, in her opinion. But if the inspector thinks the carpet is too stained or the place needs painting, the landlord would have to make that investment to continue receiving voucher payments.

Last year, Section 8 lowered the maximum rent it will pay. Eller Capital Partners, which earlier this year bought three apartment complexes totaling about 600 units, declined to say why it no longer accepts Section 8 or whether the lower rent caps had anything to do with it. But given that Eller has more than doubled the rents since it took over, you’d think it would have sufficient profit to continue a small percentage of units accepting Section 8 vouchers.
– Nancy Oates

by on August 18, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Economic development, Housing
Tagged , , ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on August 18, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/08/18/section-8-crisis/

Real estate sales 8/4/14-8/8/14

Yugen Zhang and Qingling Chen bought 106B Duncan Court from Yng Hae Chung and Hoon Lee for $174,000.
Scott D. and Ruth Ewing Berkowitz bought 616 Woodgate Drive from Donald M. and Reina S. Weiner for $178,000.
David and Alexandra Sheaves bought 8708 Snipes Farm Road from Joseph E. Phillips for $210,000.
Ryan Kilpatrick and Karynsa Cetin bought 309 Westside Drive from James T. and Melissa A. Russell for $751,000.
Timothy P. and Anna Dow Sheahan bought 824 Jean Court from John Bruce and Patricia Dulaney Hawkinds for $400,000.
Barbara Wickman bought 108 Windsor Circle from William Kevin Eastin and Mairead Moloney for $237,500.
Joseph F. Kirstein and Jo Ann Hundley bought 213 Weaver Mine Trail from Diana Mead for $455,000.
Ruth and Carol S. Newnam bought 205-F W. Poplar St., Carrboro, from Karen L. and Adam Howard Hershman for $163,000.
321 Ferguson Road sold for $217,000.
Gerhard Konig bought 124 Kingsbury Drive from Jessica L. Martell, Zackary Vernon and Kaye Martell for $105,000.
Giussepi Silenzi bought 108-B Milton Drive, Carrboro, from Beatrice G. Fike for $70,000.
Showchein and Chang Tai Hsieh bought 308 Lloyd St., Carrboro, from Risa Abney and Reginald Baldwin for $135,000.
Marcus C. and Tammie S. Powers bought 113 Scott Lane from Rebecca L. Hite and Tom Wiegand Jr. for $101,000.
Paul T. and Dionne V. McLaughlin bought 126 S. Fields Circle from Bridget Simpson for $307,000.
Scott T. Howell and Doretha A. Taylor bought 601 Brookview Drive from Carolyn Flanders and Robert Conrad Martens for $554,000.
Judy L. Greeson bought 101 White Oak Way from Marinna A. Martini for $195,000.
William Edward Vaughn bought 2056 Kirkwood Drive from Andrea Lisa Knowlton for $128,500.
John and Kristin Bartone bought 400 Cates Farm Road from Paul T. and Dionne V. McLaughlin for $455,000.

by on August 15, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Housing
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on August 15, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/08/15/real-estate-sales-8414-8814/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »