SW3230701_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20230706

r&R FROEHLING & ROBERTSON , INC .
Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Stewart's Pond Development
Wingate, North Carolina
F&R Project No. 63A-0091
Prepared For:
Southbury Development, LLC
20 Cochrane Castle Circle
Pinehurst, NC 28374
Prepared By:
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
3300 International Airport Drive, Suite 600
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
3 October 2022
Corporate HQ: 3015 Dumbarton Road Richmond,Virginia 23228 T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com
VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A Minority-Owned Business

r8lzFROEHLING:"
ROBERTSON
Engineering Stability Since 1881
NC License No. F-0266
F&R Project No.: 63A-0091 3 October 2022
Mr. David Chapman
Southbury Development, LLC
20 Cochrane Castle Circle
Pinehurst, NC 28374
Re: Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Stewart's Pond Development
Wingate, North Carolina
Mr. Chapman:
The purpose of this report is to present the results of the preliminary subsurface exploration and
geotechnical engineering evaluation services undertaken by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R) for the
above referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with F&R Proposal No.
2263-00123, dated 19 July 2022,and as authorized by David Chapman of Southbury Development, LLC.
This attached report presents our understanding of the project, reviews our subsurface exploration
and laboratory testing procedures, describes the general subsurface conditions at the boring locations,
and presents our preliminary evaluations, and recommendations.
We have enjoyed working with you on this project, and we are prepared to assist you with further
geotechnical services as plans are further developed. If requested, we can also perform the
recommended quality assurance monitoring and testing services during construction. Please contact
us if you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further service.
Sincerely, \\\\\�'t l i/////�
CAR �i
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. SS'.�4e
a SEAL r:
063399
...tea
`' •
AiLt 6Y,-( CI NC
//III11
David Morse Alexander B. Robinson, P.E.
Geotechnical Staff Engineer Branch Manager
Email Distribution: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
F:\Projects 63A\63A-0091(Southbury Development,LLC-Stewart's Pond Development)\Reports\63A0091(Southbury Dev.-Stewart,Pond Development)-GEO.RP7.docx
704.596.2889 3300 International Airport Drive A Minority-Owned Business
Suite 600
Charlotte, NC 28208

r&R
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT INFORMATION 1
1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
2.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 3
2.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 3
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING 4
3.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY&SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5
3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 5
3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5
3.2.1 General 5
3.2.2 Surficial Materials 6
3.2.3 Residual Soils 6
3.2.4 Partially Weathered Rock 6
3.2.5 Auger Refusal 7
3.2.6 Groundwater Conditions 7
3.3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 7
4.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 8
4.1 GENERAL 8
4.2 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN 8
4.3 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT 9
4.4 PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ON GROUND FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT 9
5.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 11
5.1 SITE PREPARATION 11
5.2 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION 11
5.3 CONTROLLED STRUCTURAL FILL 12
5.4 EXCAVATION CONDITIONS AND GUIDELINES 13
5.5 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS 13
5.6 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 14
6.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES 15
7.0 LIMITATIONS 16
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 iii 3 October 2022

r&R
APPENDIX I
Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No.1)
APPENDIX II
Key to Soil Classification
Soil Classification Chart
Boring Location Plan (Drawing No.2)
Boring Logs (B-1 through B-7)
APPENDIX III
Laboratory Test Summary Sheet
APPENDIX IV
GBA Publication "Important Information about This Geotechnical Engineering Report"
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 iv 3 October 2022

r&R
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary is provided as a brief overview of our geotechnical engineering
evaluation for the project and is not intended to replace more detailed information contained
elsewhere in this report. As an overview, this summary inherently omits details that could be
very important to the proper application of the provided geotechnical design recommendations.
This report should be read in its entirety prior to implementation into preliminary design and
construction. The Project Information section of this report should be particularly reviewed by
project designers to confirm that the geotechnical engineer's understanding of the project
concurs with the current project parameters at the time of project design.
• This preliminary subsurface exploration consisted of seven (7) borings designated as B-1 through
B-7, along with two offset borings B-2A and B-7A. Site subsurface conditions generally consisted
of surficial soil, underlain by residual soils, partially weathered rock (PWR) and auger refusal
materials. Borings were extended to their three consecutive samples of PWR or auger refusal.
Boring depths ranged from 5.1 to 14.3 feet below the existing ground surface.
• We envision that the anticipated structures can be supported on shallow foundation systems
bearing on approved residual soils or newly placed controlled structural fill materials,although
some undercutting may be required. Given the preliminary nature of the project components
at this time, we recommend that additional analyses be performed regarding an appropriate
foundation design bearing pressure once more definitive plans are developed. However, for
the assumed structural loading scenarios and grading information discussed in Section 1.1,we
envision that the yet-to-be-definitively-determined appropriate allowable design bearing
pressure for the project will likely fall in the range of 2,000 to 3,000 pounds per square foot
(psf)for footings bearing on approved subgrades.
• Near surface soft soils (N-Value <_ 5) was encountered at boring B-4, which may require
undercutting at the time of construction depending on the design finish floor elevation. These
soils are best evaluated in the field at the time of construction as discussed in Section 5.1.
Once site development for the project is further understood, additional geotechnical
evaluations will be needed to provide final structural support recommendations.
• PWR was encountered in each of the borings at depths ranging from 0.3 to 6 feet below the
ground surface.Auger refusal materials were encountered in borings B-2, B-2A, B-7, and B-7A
at approximate depths ranging from 5.1 to 9.0 feet below the ground surface.
• Groundwater level measurements were not encountered in the borings upon completion of
drilling operations. Therefore, we do not generally anticipate groundwater will be
encountered during mass grading.
Once a final grading plan, as well as definitive structure locations and loads are determined,
additional geotechnical evaluation will be needed to supplement the conclusions and data
from this preliminary study.
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 v 3 October 2022

r&R
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Site Description and Project Information
F&R understands that the project will consist of a new subdivision on an approximately 18.2-acre
site located at the end of South Stewart Street in Wingate, North Carolina. The project site consists
of two tax parcels (Parcel ID 09025033 and 09060002). Based on the provided conceptual drawing,
the project will consist of fifty-one (51) residential home lots with associated drive lanes, parking,
and utilities.
No site grading information has been provided at this time. However, based on available
topographic information obtained from Union County GIS and Google Earth, the site generally
slopes downward from a water feature located on the north side of the property to a small tributary,
Ray's Fork, at the most southern edge. It appears that the site has approximately 10 feet of relief
from north end to the south end of the development; however, the site then slopes an additional
15 feet downward to the noted tributary. Therefore, we have assumed finished grades will
generally mirror the existing topography and that changes to existing grades will be minimal (i.e.
cuts and fills of less than about 5 feet). Similarly, structural loads have not been provided at this
time and we have assumed maximum column and wall loads on the order of 50 kips and 3 kips per
linear foot, respectively.
1.2 Scope of Services
The purposes of our involvement on this project were to 1) provide general descriptions of the
subsurface soil conditions at the locations explored, 2) provide the preliminary geotechnical
evaluations and analyses as described below, and 3) prepare a preliminary geotechnical report
summarizing our work on the project, providing descriptions of the subsurface conditions
encountered, providing the results and preliminary recommendations of our geotechnical
evaluations, and discussing geotechnical related aspects of the proposed construction. In order to
accomplish the above objectives, we undertook the following scope of services:
1) Visited the site to observe existing surface conditions and features and mark
boring locations utilizing a handheld GPS unit.
2) Coordinated utility clearance with NC-811 Utility services.
3) Reviewed readily available geologic information as well as readily available aerial
imagery relative to geologic setting and past uses for the project site.
4) Executed a preliminary subsurface exploration consisting of up to seven (7)
standard penetration test (SPT) borings. The borings were drilled to the planned
depths or auger refusal. The borings were advanced using hollow stem auger
drilling procedures in general accordance with ASTM D1586.
5) Performed a laboratory testing program consisting of two (2) sets of geotechnical
index tests (including Atterberg limits, Wash No. 200 sieve analysis and natural
moisture).
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 1 3 October 2022

r&R
6) Evaluated the findings of the test borings and performed visual-manual engineering
classification on the collected soil samples subject to refinement after review of
laboratory testing results.
7) Prepared this written report summarizing our work on the project, providing
descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered, providing preliminary
foundation and slab support geotechnical design parameters/recommendations,
and discussing geotechnical related aspects of the proposed construction. Copies of
the test boring logs and laboratory test results are included.
Our scope of services did not include rock coring, survey services, quantity estimates, preparation
of plans or specifications, formal slope stability analyses, seismic site classification, civil, storm
water, or environmental engineering services, evaluations of earthquake motions, or the
identification and evaluation of wetland or other environmental aspects of the project site.
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 2 3 October 2022

r&R
2.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
2.1 Subsurface Exploration
The subsurface exploration program consisted of seven (7) Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
borings designated as B-1 through B-7 along with two offset borings B-2A and B-7A. Offset
borings were performed in an effort to confirm encountered auger refusal materials. The borings
were performed on 23 August 2022 at the approximate locations shown on the attached Boring
Location Plan (Drawing No. 2 in Appendix II).
F&R personnel marked the boring locations in the field using a hand-held GPS unit. As previously
discussed, ground surface elevations were not field surveyed but instead approximated using
USGS and Union County GIS provided topographic maps. In consideration of the methods used
in their determination,the test boring locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan and
elevations shown on the attached should be considered approximate.
The test borings were performed in accordance with generally accepted practice using a CME-
550X rubber-tired (ATV)-mounted drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer. Hollow-stem
augers were advanced to pre-selected depths, the center plug was removed, and representative
soil samples were recovered with a standard split-spoon sampler(1 3/8 in. ID, 2 in. OD) in general
accordance with ASTM D 1586, the Standard Penetration Test. In this test, a weight of 140
pounds is freely dropped from a height of 30 inches to drive the split-spoon sampler into the soil.
The number of blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler three consecutive 6-inch
increments is recorded, and the blows of the last two increments are summed to obtain the
Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value). The N-value provides a general indication of in-situ
soil conditions and has been correlated with certain engineering properties of soils.
In some soils it is not always practical to drive a split-spoon sampler the full three consecutive 6-
inch increments. Whenever more than 50 blows are required to drive the sampler over a 6-inch
increment, or the sampler is observed not to penetrate after 50 blows, the condition is called
split-spoon refusal. Split-spoon refusal conditions may occur because of obstructions or because
the earth materials being tested are very dense or very hard. When split-spoon refusal occurs,
often little or no sample is recovered. The SPT N-value for split-spoon refusal conditions is
typically estimated as greater than 100 blows per foot (bpf). Where the sampler is observed not
to penetrate after 50 blows,the N-value is reported as 50/0. Otherwise,the depth of penetration
after 50 blows is reported in inches, i.e. 50/5, etc.
Groundwater level readings were taken in each of the borings during and immediately upon
completion of the soil drilling process. Following groundwater readings, all boreholes were
backfilled with auger cuttings to the prevailing ground surface. By the nature of the work to be
performed, our drilling activities resulted in disturbances to the site. Reasonable efforts were
made to reduce disturbance. However, remediation of the site to a pre-explored condition was
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 3 3 October 2022

r&R
not included in our scope of services. Periodic observation and maintenance of the boreholes
should be performed due to potential subsidence at the ground surface, as the borehole backfill
could settle over time.
Representative portions of the split-spoon soil samples obtained throughout the exploration
program were sealed in air-tight containers and transported to our laboratory. In the laboratory,
the soil samples were classified by a member of our professional staff in general accordance with
techniques outlined in the visual-manual identification procedure (ASTM D 2488) and the Unified
Soil Classification System. The soil descriptions and classifications discussed in this report and
shown on the attached boring logs are generally based on visual observation and should be
considered approximate. Copies of the boring logs are provided and classification procedures
are further explained in the attached Appendix II.
Split-spoon soil samples recovered on this project will be stored at F&R's office for a period of
sixty(60) days. After sixty days,the samples will be discarded unless prior notification is provided
to us in writing.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Two (2) split-spoon soil samples were selected for additional laboratory classification testing.
This testing included water content determination (ASTM D2216), Atterberg limits tests (ASTM
D4318), and percent passing #200 sieve (ASTM D 1140). Based on the results of these tests, the
soils from these selected samples were then classified in general accordance with Unified Soil
Classification System (ASTM D2487). The results of the laboratory testing program are
summarized in a table in Section 3.3, Laboratory Test Results of this report, and additionally
provided as the Laboratory Test Summary Sheet included as Appendix III.
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 4 3 October 2022

r&R
3.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY&SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Regional Geology
The project site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
according to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985). The topography of the Piedmont Plateau
consists of well-rounded hills and long-rolling ridges with a northeast-southwest trend. Available
digital geologic mapping indicates that the primary rock types in the site vicinity generally consist
of metasandstone, metaconglomerate, and metavolcanic rock.
The soils resulting from in-situ weathering of the parent rock, without significant transportation,
are called residual soils and may retain some of the structure of the rock from which they
weathered. The residual soil profile generally grades downward gradually from fine-grained
plastic soils near the ground surface to coarser-grained soils at greater depth. A transitional zone
of"partially weathered rock"of varying thickness can occur between the coarser-grained residual
soils and the underlying bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes,
as residual material with standard penetration resistances in excess of 100 blows per foot.
Weathering of the parent bedrock is generally more rapid near fracture zones and therefore, the
bedrock surface may be irregular. Irregular patterns of differential weathering may also result in
zones of rock and partially weathered rock embedded within the more completely weathered
coarse-grained soils.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
3.2.1 General
The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs, and shown on the boring logs
in Appendix II, represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the
field and laboratory data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments. The
strata breaks designated on the boring logs and Subsurface Profiles represent approximate
boundaries between soil types. Actual transitions between soil strata are generally less distinct
than the immediate transitions depicted on the boring logs and Subsurface Profiles. Although
individual soil test borings are representative of the subsurface conditions encountered at the
boring locations on the dates shown,they are not necessarily indicative of subsurface conditions
at other locations or at other times.
Data from the specific test borings are shown on the attached boring logs in Appendix II. Given
the spacing between boring locations, it should be anticipated that subsurface conditions could
vary between the borings. Below the existing ground surface,the borings generally encountered
surficial soils underlain by existing fill materials, and/or residual soil. These various materials are
discussed further below:
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 5 3 October 2022

r&R
3.2.2 Surficial Materials
A surficial layer of soil material was encountered at all borings with variable thicknesses ranging
from about 2 to 4 inches. Surficial soil is typically dark-colored soil material containing roots,
fibrous matter, and or other organic components, and is generally unsuitable for engineering
purposes. F&R has not performed any laboratory testing to determine the organic content or
other horticultural properties of the observed surficial soil materials. Therefore, the term
surficial soil is not intended to indicate suitability for landscaping and/or other purposes. The
surficial soil depth provided in this report is based on visual observations and should be
considered approximate. We note that the transition from surficial soil to underlying materials
may be gradual and, therefore, the observation and measurement of surficial soil is subjective.
Actual surficial soil depths should be expected to vary across the site.
3.2.3 Residual Soils
Residual soils,formed by the in-place weathering of the parent rock, were generally encountered
directly below the surficial soils and in each of the borings. Sampled residual soils were described
as clayey sand (SC), sandy clay (CL), and sandy silt (ML). Standard penetration resistances within
the sampled residuum ranged from 4 to 78 bpf with a typical range of about 15 to 30 bpf.
3.2.4 Partially Weathered Rock
Partially weathered rock(PWR) is a transitional material between soil and rock, which retains the
relic structure of the rock and has hard or very dense consistencies. PWR was encountered in
each of the borings at depths ranging from 0.3 to 6 feet below the ground surface. Sampled PWR
was described as silty sand (SM) and clayey sand (SC) and exhibited penetration resistances
ranging from 50 blows per 5 inches of split-spoon penetration to 50 blows per 2 inches of
penetration (50/5 to 50/2). The depths of encountered PWR as well as the termination
conditions at the bottom of the boring (i.e. Boring Terminated or Auger Refusal) are summarized
in the table below.
Table of PWR and Terminations
Approximate
Boring No. Depth of PWR Approximate Termination
(ft) Depth (ft)
B-1 6 BT at 14.3 _
B-2 0.3 AR at 7.6
B-2A - AR at 5.1
B-3 2 BT at 13.8
B-4 3.5 BT at 13.9
B-5 6 BT at 14.0
B-6 3.5 BT at 13.7
B-7 3.5 AR at 8.1
B-7A - AR at 9.0
BT= Boring Termination
AR=Auger Refusal
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 6 3 October 2022

r&R
3.2.5 Auger Refusal
Auger refusal occurs when materials are encountered that cannot be penetrated by the soil auger
and is normally indicative of a hard or very dense material, such as boulders, rock lenses,
pinnacles, or the upper surface of bedrock. Auger refusal materials were encountered in borings
B-2, B-2A, B-7, and B-7A at approximate depths ranging from 5.1 to 9.0 feet below the ground
surface, as presented in the table above.
Auger refusal discussed herein is based on conditions impenetrable by the drilling equipment
utilized (CME 55OX), but does not necessarily indicate conditions impenetrable to other
equipment. Auger refusal conditions may exist intermediate of the boring locations or in
unexplored areas of the site.
3.2.6 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater,for the purposes of this report, is defined as water encountered below the existing
ground surface. Groundwater level readings were taken in each of the borings immediately upon
completion of the soil drilling process. Following groundwater readings, the boreholes were
backfilled with auger cuttings (soil). Groundwater was not encountered in any borings at the
time of drilling.
It should be noted that groundwater levels fluctuate depending upon seasonal factors such as
precipitation and temperature. Additionally, groundwater measurements made in
predominantly cohesive and fine-grained soils are not necessarily indicative of the actual static
groundwater level due to the low permeability of such soils. As such, soil moisture and
groundwater conditions at other times may vary or be different from those described in this
report.
3.3 Laboratory Test Results
For geotechnical considerations, select split-spoon samples from two of the soil test borings were
selected for laboratory classification testing. This testing included water content determinations
(ASTM D2216), Atterberg limits tests (ASTM D4318), and percent passing #200 sieve (ASTM D
1140). Based on the results of these tests, we refined our initial visual-manual classifications (per
ASTM D 2488) for these soil samples and classified them in general accordance with Unified Soil
Classification System (ASTM D2487).
Soil Classification Test Summary
Boring Sample Water % Finer than Atterberg Limits USCS
No. Depth (ft) Content(%) No. 200 Sieve LL PL PI Classification
B-1 2-3.5 11.5 44 38 21 17 Clayey SAND (SC)
B-7 2-3.5 8.5 62 49 20 29 Sandy CLAY(CL)
Notes: LL—Liquid Limit, PL— Plastic Limit, PI—Plastic Index, NP—Non-Plastic
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 7 3 October 2022

r&R
4.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General
The following evaluations and preliminary recommendations are based on our observations at
the site, interpretation of the field data obtained during this preliminary exploration, and our
experience with similar subsurface conditions and projects. Soil penetration data have been used
to estimate a preliminary allowable bearing pressure range using established correlations.
Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations may vary from those encountered. If structure
locations, loadings, or elevations are changed, we request that we be advised and engaged so
that we may re-evaluate our preliminary recommendations.
Determination of an appropriate foundation system for a given structure is dependent on the
proposed structural loads, soil conditions, and construction constraints. The subsurface
exploration aids the geotechnical engineer in determining the soil stratum appropriate for
structural support. This determination includes considerations with regard to both allowable
bearing capacity and compressibility of the soil strata. In addition, since the method of
construction greatly affects the soils intended for structural support, consideration must be given
to the implementation of suitable methods of site preparation,fill compaction, and other aspects
of construction.
4.2 Preliminary Foundation Design
We envision that the anticipated structures can be supported on shallow foundation systems
bearing on approved residual soils or newly placed controlled structural fill materials. Given the
preliminary nature of the project components at this time, we recommend that additional
analyses be performed regarding an appropriate foundation design bearing pressure once more
definitive plans are developed. However, for the assumed structural loading scenarios and
grading information discussed in Section 1.1, we envision that the yet-to-be-definitively-
determined appropriate allowable design bearing pressure for the project will likely fall in the
range of 2,000 to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf)for footings bearing on approved subgrades.
The actual design bearing pressure for the project should be determined after finalization of the
proposed structure location(s), loadings, and elevations.
In general, we recommend that spread and strip footings be designed with minimum widths of 3
feet and 2 feet, respectively, and that exterior footing bottoms be constructed at least 18 inches
below adjacent grades for frost protection and to reduce possible localized shear failures.
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 8 3 October 2022

r&R
Near surface soft soils (N-Value <_ 5) were encountered at boring B-4, which may require
undercutting at the time of construction depending on the design finish floor elevation. These
soils are best evaluated in the field at the time of construction as discussed in Section 5.1. Once
site development for the project is further understood, additional geotechnical evaluations will
be needed to provide final structural support recommendations.
4.3 Preliminary Estimated Settlement
Our initial settlement analyses for building loads indicate that a properly selected design bearing
pressure will yield total settlements on the order of 1 inch (with expected differential settlement
typically 1/2 to % of that); however additional analysis will be required. The above provided
preliminary bearing pressure range and estimated settlement should not be used for final design of
building foundations and is presented to aid in determining the feasibility of utilizing shallow
foundations. The use of shallow foundations should be further analyzed once site and building plans
are further developed.
We note that, depending on where it occurs and the thickness of placed materials, compression of
the existing subsurface profile under the areal load of new fill placements may be a concern. Further
evaluations of this potential issue should be included in a final geotechnical study. A finalized
grading plan will be needed.
4.4 Preliminary Discussion on Ground Floor Slab Support
Ground floor slabs may be designed as a slab-on-grade supported by approved residual soil or
controlled structural fill subgrades. Slab-on-grade support is contingent upon successful completion
of the subgrade evaluation process as described in Site Preparation (Section 5.1). We note that near
surface soft residual soils encountered in boring B-4, depending on how these materials respond
during the proof rolling operations, may require in-place densification, undercutting, or in-place
stabilization.
A vapor retarder should be used beneath ground floor slabs that will be covered by tile, wood,
carpet, impermeable floor coatings, and/or if other moisture-sensitive equipment or materials will
be in contact with the floor. We note that the IBC code, chapter 19, section 1907.1 requires that
the thickness of concrete floor slabs supported directly on the ground shall not be less than 3%2
inches. Section 1907.1 also requires that a 6-mil polyethylene vapor retarder with joints lapped not
less than 6 inches be placed between the base course or subbase and the concrete floor slab.
However, we further note that the use of vapor retarders may result in excessive curling of floor
slabs during curing. Floor slab designers may refer to ACI 302.1R for further discussion on vapor
retarders, curling, and the means to reduce concrete shrinkage and curling.
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 9 3 October 2022

r&R
Proper jointing of the ground floor slab is also essential to minimize cracking. ACI suggests that
unreinforced, plain concrete slabs may be jointed at spacing of 24 to 36 times the slab thickness, up
to a maximum spacing of 18 feet. Floor slab construction should incorporate isolation joints along
bearing walls and around column locations to allow minor movements to occur without damage.
Utility or other construction excavations in the prepared floor subgrade should be backfilled to a
controlled fill criterion to provide uniform floor support.
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 10 3 October 2022

r&R
5.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Site Preparation
Before proceeding with construction, surficial soils and any other deleterious non-soil materials
should be stripped or removed from the proposed construction area. During the clearing and
stripping operations, positive surface drainage should be maintained to prevent the accumulation
of water. Underground utilities should be re-routed to locations a minimum of 10 feet outside of
proposed new structure footprints.
After stripping, areas intended to support new fill, pavements, floor slabs, and foundations
should be carefully evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. At that time,the
engineer may require proof rolling of the subgrade with a 20- to 30-ton loaded truck or other
pneumatic-tired vehicle of similar size and weight.
Additionally we note that near surface soft residual soils were encountered in boring B-4. These
areas are best evaluated at the time of construction, especially in the areas where lower N-values
were encountered (i.e. N-Values <_ 5 bpf). Evaluation of subgrades by a geotechnical engineer or
their representative should be performed prior to at-grade construction. Depending on the
results of the subgrade evaluations, some remediation may be required such as undercutting.
Proof rolling should be performed during a time of good weather and not while the site is wet,
frozen, or severely desiccated. The purpose of the proof rolling is to locate soft, weak, or
excessively wet soils present at the time of construction and to provide an opportunity for the
geotechnical engineer to locate inconsistencies intermediate of our boring locations.
5.2 Foundation Construction
All foundation subgrades should be observed, evaluated, and verified for the design bearing
pressure by a representative of the geotechnical engineer after excavation and prior to
reinforcing steel placement. If low consistency soils are encountered at the foundation subgrade
during construction, localized undercutting and/or in-place stabilization of foundation subgrades
may be required. The actual need for, and extent of, undercutting or in-place stabilization should
be based on field observations made by a representative of the geotechnical engineer at the time
of construction.
Excavations for footings should be made in such a way as to provide bearing surfaces that are
firm and free of loose, soft, wet, or otherwise disturbed soils. Foundation concrete should not
be placed on frozen or saturated subgrades. If such materials are allowed to remain below
foundations, settlements will increase. Foundation excavations should be concreted as soon as
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 11 3 October 2022

r&R
practical after they are excavated. If an excavation is left open for an extended period, a thin
mat of lean concrete should be placed over the bottom to minimize damage to the bearing
surface from weather or construction activities. Water should not be allowed to pond in any
excavation.
5.3 Controlled Structural Fill
At the locations explored, the existing on-site soils appeared generally acceptable for reuse as
controlled structural fill materials; although,some moisture conditioning may be required. Based
on the boring data, controlled structural fill may generally be constructed using the on-site soils.
However and if needed, highly plastic clays and silts (CH and MH)should not be used for retaining
wall backfill. If an off-site borrow source is required to balance the site, the imported materials
should have a classification of CL, ML, SC, or SM as defined by the Unified Soil Classification
System. Other materials may be suitable for use as controlled structural fill material and should
be individually evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. Controlled structural fill should be free
of boulders, organic matter, debris, or other deleterious materials and should have a maximum
particle size no greater than 3 inches. In addition, we typically recommend a minimum standard
Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density of approximately 90 pounds per cubic feet for fill
materials.
Fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts with maximum height of 8 inches in loose
measure. New fill should be adequately keyed into stripped and scarified subgrade soils and
should, where applicable, be benched into the existing slopes. During fill operations, positive
surface drainage should be maintained to prevent the accumulation of water. We recommend
that structural fill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry
density. In confined areas such as utility trenches, portable compaction equipment and thin lifts
of 3 to 4 inches may be required to achieve specified degrees of compaction.
In general, we recommend that the moisture content of fill soils be maintained within three
percentage points of the optimum moisture content as determined from the standard Proctor
density test. Moisture control may be especially difficult during winter months or extended
periods of rain. Attempts to work the soils when wet can be expected to result in deterioration
of otherwise suitable soil conditions or of previously placed and properly compacted fill. We
recommend that the contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both drying and
wetting of fill soils. Where construction traffic or weather has disturbed the subgrade, the upper
8 inches of soils (or more if warranted) intended for structural support should be scarified and
re-compacted. Each lift of fill should be tested in order to confirm that the recommended degree
of compaction is attained.
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 12 3 October 2022

r&R
5.4 Excavation Conditions and Guidelines
We anticipate a majority of the near-surface subgrade soils at the site can be excavated with
backhoes, front-end loaders or other similar equipment using conventional means and methods.
Mass excavations and other excavations required for this project must be performed in accordance
with the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
guidelines (29 CFR 1926, Subpart P, Excavations) or other applicable jurisdictional codes for
permissible temporary side-slope ratios and or shoring requirements. The OSHA guidelines require
daily inspections of excavations, adjacent areas and protective systems by a "competent person"
for evidence of situations that could result in cave-ins, indications of failure of a protective system,
or other hazardous conditions.
Excavated soils, equipment, building supplies, etc., should be placed away from the edges of the
excavation at a distance equaling or exceeding the depth of the excavation. F&R cautions that the
actual excavation slopes will need to be evaluated frequently each day by the "competent person"
and flatter slopes or the use of shoring may be required to maintain a safe excavation depending
upon excavation specific circumstances. The contractor is responsible for providing the "competent
person" and all aspects of site excavation safety.
5.5 Excavation Characteristics
In consideration of the boring data and anticipated site grades, we anticipate that PWR and/or
rock will likely be encountered during mass grading and utility installation. It is likely that utility
trenches will be in PWR with the possibility of some rock being encountered, as auger refusal
conditions occurred in two of our borings.
Typically, material with an N-value of 50 blows per 2 to 6 inches of penetration can be excavated
with moderate to heavy effort using appropriately sized equipment, such as a large track-hoe
(e.g., Caterpillar 330 with rock teeth). In confined excavations such as foundations, utility
trenches, elevator pits, etc., removal of partially weathered rock typically requires use of large
backhoes, pneumatic spades, or light blasting. Refusal materials will normally require blasting
for removal in all types of excavations. Any blasting in footing excavations must be done carefully
to prevent damage to the bearing materials.
Prior to any blasting operations, we recommend conducting a pre-blast survey for all structures
within 300 feet. A written blasting program should then be submitted by the blasting
subcontractor for review by the architect/structural engineer. Peak particle velocities produced
by blasting should be measured adjacent to the foundations of nearby structures and should be
restricted to levels of no more than 0.5 to 1.0 inches per second, depending on the distance from
the blasting. Air blast levels should also be monitored and restricted to less than 130 to 140
decibels. Trial blasting should be required to confirm that ground motions are reasonably
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 13 3 October 2022

r&R
predictable. All work should be performed by an experienced licensed contractor. In order to
reasonably measure quantities of rock, you may wish to use a land surveyor to cross-section the
upper surface of rock prior to blasting.
The definition of rock can be a source of conflict during construction. The following definitions
have been incorporated into specifications on other projects and are provided for your general
guidance:
GENERAL EXCAVATION:
Rip Rock- Any material that cannot be removed by scrapers, loaders, pans, dozers, or
graders; and requires the use of a single-tooth ripper mounted on a crawler
tractor having a minimum draw bar pull rated at not less than 56,000 pounds.
Blast Rock- Any material which cannot be excavated with a single-tooth ripper mounted
on a crawler tractor having a minimum draw bar pull rated at not less than
56,000 pounds (Caterpillar D-8K or equivalent) or by a Caterpillar 977
front-end loader or equivalent; and occupying an original volume of at least
one (1) cubic yard.
TRENCH EXCAVATION:
Blast Rock- Any material which cannot be excavated with a backhoe having a bucket
curling force rated at not less than 25,700 pounds (Caterpillar Model 330 or
equivalent, with rock teeth), and occupying an original volume of at least
one-half(1/2) cubic yard.
5.6 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater level measurements were not encountered in the borings upon completion of
drilling operations. Therefore, we do not generally anticipate groundwater will be encountered
during mass grading.
Due to the presence of silty and clayey soils,which generally have very low hydraulic conductivity,
trapped or perched water conditions may be encountered at some point during project
development, especially during periods of inclement weather and seasonally wet periods.
Fluctuations in subsurface water levels and soil moisture can be anticipated with changes in
precipitation, runoff, and season. In addition, groundwater readings in predominantly cohesive
and fine-grained soils are not necessarily indicative of the actual static groundwater levels due to
the low-permeability of such soils.
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 14 3 October 2022

r&R
6.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES
Once definitive information with respect to structure types, locations, loading, and elevations are
determined, a final geotechnical evaluation should be performed. At that time, additional
subsurface information may be required to provide final geotechnical design parameters and
recommendations. Upon completion of a final geotechnical report and subsequent project
design, we recommend that we be given the opportunity to review the foundation plan, grading
plan, and project specifications when construction documents approach completion. This review
evaluates whether the recommendations and comments provided herein have been understood
and properly implemented.
We also recommend that Froehling & Robertson, Inc. be retained for professional and
construction materials testing services during construction of the project. Our continued
involvement on the project helps provide continuity for proper implementation of our final
geotechnical recommendations once developed. These services are not part of the currently
authorized scope of work.
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 15 3 October 2022

r&R
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This preliminary report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Southbury Development for
specific application to the referenced Stewart's Pond Development project in accordance with
generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or
implied, is made. Our preliminary conclusions and recommendations are based on design
information furnished to us, the data obtained from the previously described subsurface
exploration program, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. The preliminary
conclusions and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface conditions which could
exist intermediate of the boring locations or in unexplored areas of the site. Should such
variations become apparent during construction, it will be necessary to re-evaluate our
preliminary conclusions and recommendations based upon on-site observations of the
conditions.
There are important limitations to this and all geotechnical studies. Some of these limitations are
discussed in the information prepared by GBA. We ask that you please review this GBA
information.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that
conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not
as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions.
Therefore, experienced geotechnical engineers should evaluate earthwork, pavement, and
foundation construction to verify that the conditions anticipated in design actually exist.
Otherwise, we assume no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts,
specifications, or recommendations.
In the event that changes are made in our understanding of the design or location of the
proposed structures, the preliminary recommendations presented in the report shall not be
considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by our firm and conclusions of this report
modified and/or verified in writing. If this report is copied or transmitted to a third party, it must
be copied or transmitted in its entirety, including text, attachments, and enclosures.
Interpretations based on only a part of this report may not be valid. This report contains 16 pages
of text and the attached appendices.
Southbury Development,LLC Stewart's Pond Development
F&R Project No. 63A-0091 16 3 October 2022

r&R
APPENDIX I
Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No.1)

Site Location
\\
•
•
. \ K
• •
SINCE FROEHLING St ROBERTSON, INC. DATE: October2022
r8cEngineeringp Stability Since 1881
3300 International Airport Drive,Suite 600 SCALE: 1:24,000
Charlotte, North Carolina, 28208
T 704.596.2889 I F 704.596.3784
1881 DRAWN: CJW 63A-0091
Stewart's Pond Development Drawing
Southbury Development, LLC SITE VICINITY MAP
Wingate, North Carolina No. 1

r&R
APPENDIX II
Key to Soil Classification
Soil Classification Chart
Boring Location Plan (Drawing No.2)
Boring Logs (B-1 through B-7)

SINCE
rsiz
KEY TO BORING LOG SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Particle Size and Proportion
Visual descriptions are assigned to each soil sample or stratum based on estimates of the
particle size of each component of the soil and the percentage of each component of the soil.
Particle Size Proportion
Descriptive Terms Descriptive Terms
Soil Component Particle Si _
ze Component Term Percentage
Boulder > 12 inch Major Uppercase Letters >50%
Cobble 3 - 12 inch (e.g., SAND, CLAY)
Gravel-Coarse 3/4 -3 inch
-Fine #4 -3/4 inch Secondary Adjective 20%-50%
Sand-Coarse #10 -#4 (e.g., sandy, clayey)
-Medium #40 -#10
-Fine #200 -#40 Minor Some 15%-25%
Silt(non-cohesive) <#200 Little 5%- 15%
Clay(cohesive) <#200 Trace 0%-5%
Notes:
1. Particle size is designated by U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
2. Because of the small size of the split-spoon sampler relative to the size of gravel,the true percentage of gravel
may not be accurately estimated.
Density or Consistency
The standard penetration resistance values (N-values) are used to describe the density of
coarse-grained soils (GRAVEL, SAND) or the consistency of fine-grained soils (SILT, CLAY).
Sandy silts of very low plasticity may be assigned a density instead of a consistency.
DENSITY CONSISTENCY
Term N-Value Term N-Value
Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft 0- 1
Loose 5 - 10 Soft 2 -4
Medium Dense 11 - 30 Firm 5 - 8
Dense 31 - 50 Stiff 9 - 15
Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 16 -30
Hard >30
Notes:
1. The N-value is the number of blows of a 140 lb.Hammer freely falling 30 inches required to drive a standard
split-spoon sampler(2.0 in. O.D., 1-3/8 in.I.D.) 12 inches into the soil after properly seating the sampler 6
inches.
2. When encountered,gravel may increase the N-value of the standard penetration test and may not accurately
represent the in-situ density or consistency of the soil sampled.
F:\Branch 62\GEOWORD\REPORTS\keyblsc.enc.doc

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL
GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS
•-• •-Is
CLEAN 4. ivWELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-
GRAVEL GRAVELS '� �•� �/ GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
•�
AND •s S S FINES
GRAVELLY :+18 +.'. .,'. POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) lie bilk .1 �'P GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
60 111 •0 111 OR NO FINES
COARSE
•+1i • in
GRAINED GRAVELS WITH ,1•4 ./ SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-
SOILS MORE THAN 50% FINES b V M SILT MIXTURES
OF COARSE •0 411 • 411
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO. 'Or
4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE . GC CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-
AMOUNT OF FINES) ` GC CLAY MIXTURES
CLEAN SANDS WELL-GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY
MORE THAN 50% SAND SW SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
OF MATERIAL IS AND
LARGER THAN SANDY NO.200 SIEVE SOILS POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
SIZE (LITTLE OR NO FINES) 5P GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SANDS WITH - - - SILTY SANDS,SAND-SILT
MORE THAN 50% FINES - SM MIXTURES
OF COARSE -
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SC MIXTURES
YEANDS,SAND-CLAY
AMOUNT OF FINES) -
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR,SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
SILTS r INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
FINE AND LIQUID LIMIT MEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY
GRAINED CLAYS LESS THAN 50 / CL CLAYS,SANDY CLAYS,SILTY
SOILS _ _ _ _ CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS
OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50% INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
OF MATERIAL IS M H DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SMALLER THAN SILTY SOILS
NO.200 SIEVE
SIZE
SILTS 1)7
LIQUID LIMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
AND GREATER THAN 50 / CH PLASTICITY
CLAYS
^^^^^^^^^ OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY,ORGANIC SILTS
0 I, 0 I, \0 I,
0,, 0,, 0,, ' PEAT, HUMUS,SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

1 r, \ ...e.rt .r at -u�i eb
\a`l \\ 1 L: \ 'i
\ \.7
..:...1.,
r dci..tw r.+--"1::.
t
f„/,, ,441/iticin, „,_ ,,__
` ..< ♦
; \` /;
\ `
H a` yet``r.-_.ram >iwil
rt S a
,ti B-6,
' :i.: 4. a °
,ss,.s MI \ rl:» . . t»c ... t»c .. . ♦ Y L
¢/�-
- -i$'it- ''' , ' r...,._ B-4 .:..:..:.:.:.. milk , s
'',. 4 I I OPEM SPACE]Tr j
, `::.e
) I I
' '.-'>._ \
1 I 1 .. 1
1 1 \\\\gam.\
'm \\\\\� ia 1 i 1 i ..M 1 \\
1 t1.
/ 1 ♦ ♦ 1
1 I aa `\ ♦aa ` i �gi
1a a♦ . � aa
11 1I 1 g.
1 1 A ♦\ \ ♦
I
II ^ .�-_r f► ^~Y J l q.,4 .. below.
ry—. ��" Call before you dig,
!z!,/1) ---—--— — ��,y.5tmare d i
a�l wegoeariscimaselmisaraur Won
Iwd= R
GRAPHIC SCALE
0' 90' 180'
Boring locations were marked in the field by pulling from F R O E H L I N G Sc R O B E RT S O N, INC. DATE: October 2022
nearest landmarks and site features. "°E
F Engineering Stability Since 1881
3300
Boring Location: & International Airport Drive,Suite 600 SCALE: As Shown
Charlotte, North Carolina, 28208
"$ T 704.596.2889 I F 704.596.3784 DRAWN: ABR
Stewart's Pond Development EXPLORATION DRAWING NO.
Southbury Development, LLC LOCATION
2
Wingate, North Carolina PLAN

SINCE
f$RFroehIing & Robertson , Inc . BORING LOG
Boring: B 1 (1 of 1)
1881
Project No:63A-0091 Elevation:556± Drilling Method: HSA
Client:Southbury Development, LLC Total Depth: 14.3' Hammer Type:Automatic
Project:Stewart's Pond Boring Location:See boring location plan Date Drilled:8/23/22
City/State:Wingate, NC Driller: HPC/D. Price
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth Depth Remarks
(Classification) Blows (feet) (blows/ft)
555.7 - 0.3 —'�' \ SURFICIAL SOIL:4 inches ` 8-10-10 0.0Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM:Very stiff, brown, sandy SILT(ML) 1.5 20 encounteredpo immediately
554.0 - 2.0 . . I with trace organics, moist 2.0
upon completion of
5 7 10 drilling
' Medium dense,gray and brown,fine clayey 1 17
SAND(SC)with trace organics and rock 10-15-15 3.5
' fragments, moist 30
5.0
550.0 6.0 I PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK:Sampled as
32-50/5 6.0
hard, brown and tan, SILT(ML)with trace 6.9 100+
548.0 - 8.0 Il'I� Norganics and rock fragments, moist /.
1 Sampled as very dense,gray and brown, clayey 27-40-50/3 8.5
SAND(SC)with rock fragments, moist 9.8 100+
i
" (
— 8-50/4 13.5
541.7 - 14.3 14.3
Boring terminated at 14.3 feet. 100+
N
N
T
8
u
CC
LI
C
z
K
0
03
z
0
d
cc
a
0
0
zI
z
0
0
m
"*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30""to drive 2""O.D.,1.375"" I.D.sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance

SINCE
f$RFroehIing & Robertson , Inc . BORING LOG
Boring: B-2 (1 of 1)
1881
Project No:63A-0091 Elevation:549± Drilling Method: HSA
Client:Southbury Development, LLC Total Depth: 7.6' Hammer Type:Automatic
Project:Stewart's Pond Boring Location:See boring location plan Date Drilled:8/23/22
City/State:Wingate, NC Driller: HPC/D. Price
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth Depth Remarks
(Classification) Blows (feet) (blows/ft)
548.8 - 0.3 d SURFICIAL SOIL: 3 inches [10-18-50/5 0.0Groundwater was not
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK:Sampled as very 1.4 100+ encountered immediately
dense, brown and gray,fine silty SAND(SM)with 2.0 upon completion of
( trace organics and rock fragments, moist 50/4 drilling
3.5 100+
50/5
r 100+
543.0 6.0 Sampled as very dense, brown and gray,fine 50/6 6.0
clayey SAND(SC)with trace organics and rock 1 100+
541.4 - 7.6 \fragments, moist
Auger refusal at 7.6 feet.
F
CC
O
0
cc
w
21
z
0
"*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30""to drive 2""O.D.,1.375"" I.D.sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance

SINCE
rsiz Froehl ing & Robertson , Inc . BORING LOG
Boring: B-2A (1 of 1)
1881
Project No:63A-0091 Elevation:549± Drilling Method: HSA
Client:Southbury Development, LLC Total Depth: 5.1' Hammer Type:Automatic
Project:Stewart's Pond Boring Location:Offset 10'S of B-2 Date Drilled:8/23/22
City/State:Wingate, NC Driller: HPC/D. Price
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth Depth Remarks
(Classification) Blows (feet) (blows/ft)
- y Auger only to 5.1 feet Groundwater was not
( encountered immediately
upon completion of
_ ) drilling
543.9 - 5.1—
Auger refusal at 5.1 feet.
F
CC
C
o
m
O
d
a
w
0
z
0
0
m
"*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30""to drive 2""O.D.,1.375"" I.D.sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance

SINCE
f$RFroehIing & Robertson , Inc . BORING LOG
Boring: B-3 (1 of 1)
1881
Project No:63A-0091 Elevation:564± Drilling Method: HSA
Client:Southbury Development, LLC Total Depth: 13.8' Hammer Type:Automatic
Project:Stewart's Pond Boring Location:See boring location plan Date Drilled:8/23/22
City/State:Wingate, NC Driller: HPC/D. Price
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth Depth Remarks
(Classification) Blows (feet) (blows/ft)
563.8 = 0.3 \ SURFICIAL SOIL: 3 inches ` 6-11-15 0.0 Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM:Very stiff, brown, sandy SILT(ML) 1.5 26 encountered immediately
562.0 - 2.0 trace organics and rock fragments, moist 2.0 upon completion of
\withg g / 11-30-50/6 drilling
PLY H Sampled
hard PARTIALLY
brownWEAT and gray,sandyEREDROCK:SILT(ML)withas trace 36-50/6 3.5 100+
11
organics and rock fragments, moist 4.5 100+
558.0 - 6.0 1�� 6.0
!i Sampled as hard, brown,sandy SILT(ML)with 50/5
�1 trace organics and rock fragments, moist 100+
50/3 i 8.5
100+
il
1
550.2 - 13.8 iI 50/3 i 13.5
Boring terminated at 13.8 feet. 100+
N
N
4
T
8
0
CC
C
Z
K
0
m
d
r
a
3
w
2
z
z
OE
0
m
"*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30""to drive 2""O.D.,1.375"" I.D.sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance

SINCE
f$RFroehIing & Robertson , Inc . BORING LOG
Boring: B-4 (1 of 1)
1881
Project No:63A-0091 Elevation:564± Drilling Method: HSA
Client:Southbury Development, LLC Total Depth: 13.9' Hammer Type:Automatic
Project:Stewart's Pond Boring Location:See boring location plan Date Drilled:8/23/22
City/State:Wingate, NC Driller: HPC/D. Price
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth Depth Remarks
(Classification) Blows (feet) (blows/ft)
563.7 - 0.3 ' \ SURFICIAL SOIL:4 inches ` 2-1-3 0.0 Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM:Soft, brown and gray, sandy SILT 1.5 4 encounteredpo immediately
562.0 - 2.0 i(ML)with trace organics and rock fragments, - 2.0 upon completion of
lmoist 1 5 11 23 34 drilling
J
560.5 - 3.5 Hard brown and ra ,sandylean CLAY(CL)with 3.5
I
� g .Y 33-50/5
\rock fragments, moist I 4 4 100+
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK:Sampled as very
dense, brown and gray,fine silty SAND(SM)with 6.0
trace organics and rock fragments, moist 27 50/46 8 100+
556.0 8.0 -
I1'' 1 Sampled as very dense,gray and brown,fine 8.5
clayey SAND(SC)with trace organics and rock 28-39-50/5
`� fragments, moist 9 9 100+
I" (
11
550.1 - 13.9 %I' " 50/4 ) 13.5
Boring terminated at 13.9 feet. 100+
N
N
4
T
8
0
CC
C
Z
K
0
m
d
r
a
3
w
0
zI
z
0
0
m
"*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30""to drive 2""O.D.,1.375"" I.D.sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance

SINCE
f$RFroehIing & Robertson , Inc . BORING LOG
Boring: B-5 (1 of 1)
1881
Project No:63A-0091 Elevation:552± Drilling Method: HSA
Client:Southbury Development, LLC Total Depth: 14.0' Hammer Type:Automatic
Project:Stewart's Pond Boring Location:See boring location plan Date Drilled:8/23/22
City/State:Wingate, NC Driller: HPC/D. Price
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth (Classification) Blows (feet) (blows/ft) Remarks
551.8 - 0.2 _ ' \ SURFICIAL SOIL: 2 inches [ 6-7-8 0.0 Groundwater was not
—- RESIDUUM:Stiff, brown,sandy SILT(ML)with 1.5 15 encountered immediately
550.0 - 2.0 I trace organics and rock fragments, moist 2.0 upon completion of
�/ J 6-11-25 drilling
— • Dense to very dense, brown and gray,fine clayey 36
SAND(SC)with trace organics and rock 20-25-35 3.5
—.- • fragments, moist 60
5.0
•
546.0 - 6.0 50/5.5 6.0
_ � PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK:Sampled as
hard, brown and tan, sandy lean CLAY(CL)with 100+
_i/ rock fragments, moist
50/6 8.5
l4 100+
II
538.0 - 14.0
50/6 13.5
Boring terminated at 14 feet. 100+
N
N
T
8
0
CC
C
Z
K
0
m
d
r
a
w
0
zI
z
0
0
m
"*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30""to drive 2""O.D.,1.375"" I.D.sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance

SINCE
f$RFroehIing & Robertson , Inc . BORING LOG
Boring: B-6 (1 of 1)
1881
Project No:63A-0091 Elevation:545± Drilling Method: HSA
Client:Southbury Development, LLC Total Depth: 13.7' Hammer Type:Automatic
Project:Stewart's Pond Boring Location:See boring location plan Date Drilled:8/23/22
City/State:Wingate, NC Driller: HPC/D. Price
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Depth
Elevation Depth (Classification) Blows (feet) (blows/ft) Remarks
544.8 - 0.3 % \ SURFICIAL SOIL: 3 inches r 6-6-7 0.0 Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM:Stiff to hard, brown and gray, 1.5 13 encounteredimmediately
sandy lean CLAY(CL)with trace organics and 2.0 uppoo n completion of
10 12 19
rock fragments, moist 31 drilling
541.5 - 3.5 3.5 '
ll PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK:Sampled as 20-31-50/6
hard, brown and gray,sandy lean CLAY(CL)with 5.0 100+
`� rock fragments, moist
50/6 6.0
11 100+
537.0 8.0 ;i' 1 Sampled as very dense, brown,fine silty SAND 8.5
(SM)with rock fragments, moist 50/6
) 100+
il
11
531.3 - 13.7 1 ' 50/2 i 13.5
Boring terminated at 13.7 feet. 100+
N
N
4
T
8
0
CC
C
(79
K
0
m
Z
0
d
r
a
3
w
21
z
0
0
m
"*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30""to drive 2""O.D.,1.375"" I.D.sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance

SINCE
f$RFroehIing & Robertson , Inc . BORING LOG
Boring: B-7 (1 of 1)
1881
Project No:63A-0091 Elevation:558± Drilling Method: HSA
Client:Southbury Development, LLC Total Depth:8.1' Hammer Type:Automatic
Project:Stewart's Pond Boring Location:See boring location plan Date Drilled:8/23/22
City/State:Wingate, NC Driller: HPC/D. Price
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Depth
Elevation Depth (Classification) Blows (feet) (blows/ft) Remarks
557.8 - 0.2 �J' SURFICIAL SOIL: 2 inches ` 6-14-11 0.0 Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM:Very stiff to hard, brown and gray, 25 encountered immediately
1.5 upon completion of
sandy lean CLAY(CL)with trace organics and 6-36-42 2.0 drilling
rock fragments, moist 78
554.5 3.5 PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK:Sampled as very , 50/6 3.5
dense, brown and gray,fine clayey SAND (SC) 100+
with rock fragments, moist
50/3 i 6.0
100+
549.9 - 8.1
Auger refusal at 8.1 feet.
F
CC
C
t
0
m
2 d
r
w
9.1
z
0
0
"*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30""to drive 2""O.D.,1.375"" I.D.sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance

SINCE
f$RFroehIing & Robertson , Inc . BORING LOG
Boring: B-7A (1 of 1)
1881
Project No:63A-0091 Elevation:558± Drilling Method: HSA
Client:Southbury Development, LLC Total Depth:9.0' Hammer Type:Automatic
Project:Stewart's Pond Boring Location:Offset 10' E of B-7 Date Drilled:8/23/22
City/State:Wingate, NC Driller: HPC/D. Price
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth Depth Remarks
(Classification) Blows (feet) (blows/ft)
— Auger only to 8.5 feet Groundwater was not
_ encountered immediately
upon completion of
drilling
549.5 - 8.5 I' PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK:Sampled as very 50/6 8.5
549.0 9•0 Idense, brown and gray,fine clayey SAND (SC) 100+
with rock fragments, moist
Auger refusal at 9 feet.
F
CC
C
t
0
0
m
0
O
d
r
a
w
21
z
0
0
"*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30""to drive 2""0.D.,1.375"" I.D.sampler a total of 24 inches in four 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance

rstR
APPENDIX III
Laboratory Test Summary Sheet

Froehling&Robertson,Inc.
r8,RCharlotte Office
3300 International Airport Drive,Suite 600 Charlotte, NC 28208 Material Test Report
Phone:[phone] www.FandR.com
Client: Southbury Development, LLC CC: Report No: ASM:6322-03028
20 Cochrane Castle Circle Issue No: 1
Pinehurst, NC 28374
Project: 63A0091
Stewarts Pond Development
S. Stewart Street Reviewed By: Robinson Alexander B
Wingate, NC 28174 Review Date: 10/2/2022
Material Details
Source Onsite Excavated Sampled From on-site excavation
Sample Details
Sample ID 6322-03028-SO1 6322-03028-S02
Field Sample ID
Date Sampled 8/23/2022 8/23/2022
Boring No B-1 S2 B-7 S2
Depth 2-3.5' 2-3.5'
Other Test Results .A=1
Description Method Results - + Limits
Passing No.200(75 pm)(%) ASTM D1140 44 62
Procedure A A
Soaking Period(min) 120 120
Initial Dry Mass(g) 175.2 117.5
Water Content Determined No No
Tested By Usery David B Usery David B
Water Content(%) ASTM D2216 11.5 8.5
Date Tested 9/15/2022 9/15/2022
Tested By Usery David B Usery David B
Group Code ASTM D2487 SC CL
Group Name Clayey sand Sandy lean clay
Sand(%) 56 38
Fines(%) 45 62
Tested By ASTM D2487 Usery David a Usery David B
Liquid Limit ASTM D4318 38 49
Plastic Limit 21 20
Plasticity Index 17 29
Tested By Usery David B Usery David B
Date Tested 9/15/2022 9/15/2022
Comments Legend
The results provided herein relate only to the items inspected and/or tested.This report shall not be reproduced,except in full,without the prior written approval of F&R.
Form No:18980,Report No:ASM:6322-03028 ©2000-2022 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com Page 1 of 1

r&R
APPENDIX IV
GBA Publication "Important Information about This
Geotechnical Engineering Report"

Important Information about This
(-- Geotecbnical-[ngineering
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
has prepared this advisory to help you—assumedly those that affect:
a client representative—interpret and apply this • the site's size or shape;
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively • the function of the proposed structure,as when it's
as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from changed from a parking garage to an office building,or
a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or
that,for decades, have been a principal cause of weight of the proposed structure;
construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and • the composition of the design team;or
disputes. If you have questions or want more • project ownership.
information about any of the issues discussed below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their
Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a impact.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
construction project. would have considered.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects • for a different client;
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific • for a different project;
needs of their clients.A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a different site(that may or may not include all or a
for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil- portion of the original site);or
works constructor or even a different civil engineer.Because each • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
geotechnical-engineering study is unique,each geotechnical- to it;e.g.,man-made events like construction or
engineering report is unique,prepared solely for the client.Those who environmental remediation,or natural events like floods,
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client droughts,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctuations.
can be seriously misled.No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first Note,too,that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
-not even you-should apply this report for any purpose or project except because of factors like changed subsurface conditions;new or modified
the one originally contemplated. codes,standards,or regulations;or new techniques or tools.If your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an`apply-by"date on the report,
Read this Report in Full ask what it should be,and,in general,if you are the least bit uncertain
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- about the continued reliability of this report,contact your geotechnical
engineering report did not read it in its entirety.Do not rely on an engineer before applying it.A minor amount of additional testing or
executive summary.Do not read selected elements only.Read this report analysis-if any is required at all-could prevent major problems.
in full.
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer Professional Opinions
about Change Before construction begins,geotechnical engineers explore a site's
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,project-specific factors subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
when designing the study behind this report and developing the Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.A few those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed.The
typical factors include: data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
• the client's goals,objectives,budget,schedule,and geotechnical engineer,who then applied professional judgment to
risk-management preferences; form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual
• the general nature of the structure involved,its size, sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ-maybe significantly-from
configuration,and performance criteria; those indicated in this report.Confront that risk by retaining your
• the structure's location and orientation on the site;and geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
• other planned or existing site improvements,such as project finish,so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
retaining walls,access roads,parking lots,and whenever needed.
underground utilities.

This Report's Recommendations Are perform their own studies if they want to,and be sure to allow enough
Confirmation-Dependent time to permit them to do so.Only then might you be in a position
The recommendations included in this report-including any options to give constructors the information available to you,while requiring
or alternatives-are confirmation-dependent.In other words,they are them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
not final,because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied from unanticipated conditions.Conducting prebid and preconstruction
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so.Your geotechnical engineer conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction.If through observation your Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist Some client representatives,design professionals,and constructors do
actually do exist,the recommendations can be relied upon,assuming not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
no other changes have occurred.The geotechnical engineer who prepared engineering disciplines.That lack of understanding has nurtured
this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation- unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments,delays,
dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform cost overruns,claims,and disputes.To confront that risk,geotechnical
construction observation. engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.
Sometimes labeled"limitations;'many of these provisions indicate
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted where geotechnical engineers'responsibilities begin and end,to help
Other design professionals'misinterpretation of geotechnical- others recognize their own responsibilities and risks.Read these
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Confront that risk provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical engineer should
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the respond fully and frankly.
design team,to:
• confer with other design-team members, Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
• help develop specifications, The personnel,equipment,and techniques used to perform an
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals' environmental study-e.g.,a"phase-one"or"phase-two"environmental
plans and specifications,and site assessment-differ significantly from those used to perform
• be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering a geotechnical-engineering study.For that reason,a geotechnical-
guidance is needed. engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
report.Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction failures.If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
observation. information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management
guidance.As a general rule,do not rely on an environmental report
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance prepared for a different client,site,or project,or that is more than six
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift months old.
unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
the costly,contentious problems this practice has caused,include the Infiltration and Mold
complete geotechnical-engineering report,along with any attachments While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
or appendices,with your contract documents,but be certain to note water infiltration,or similar issues in this report,none of the engineer's
conspicuously that you've included the material for informational services were designed,conducted,or intended to prevent uncontrolled
purposes only.To avoid misunderstanding,you may also want to note migration of moisture-including water vapor-from the soil through
that"informational purposes"means constructors have no right to rely building slabs and walls and into the building interior,where it can
on the interpretations,opinions,conclusions,or recommendations in cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.Accordingly,
the report,but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations
times,locations,and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration.Confront
constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold
including options selected from the report,only from the design specialists on the design team.Geotechnical engineers are not building-
drawings and specifications.Remind constructors that they may envelope or mold specialists.
5 GEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
t ASSOCIATION
Telephone:[phone]
e-mail:[e-mail] wwwgeoprofessional.org
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA).Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly
prohibited,except with GBAs specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission
of GBA,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any
kind.Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent