Issuu

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix A: Situation Assessment

Forestville Road Park Property Situation Assessment Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources March 2025

raleighnc.gov

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Project Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................4 Funding .........................................................................................................................................................................................4

Planning Context .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Park System Context ................................................................................................................................................................6 Park Experiences ......................................................................................................................................................................8 Current and Future Land Use................................................................................................................................................8 Raleigh Street Plan – Oak Hill Drive ................................................................................................................................ 10

Site Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Natural Resources.................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Community Framework .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Demographic Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Community Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 20

Community Engagement ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Level of Participation ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 Community Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................................... 22 Communication Strategies.................................................................................................................................................. 22 Identified Stakeholder Concerns & Suggestions ......................................................................................................... 23

Community Advisory Group ................................................................................................................................... 25 Selection Process.................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Recommended Membership .............................................................................................................................................. 26 Demographic Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 27

Next Steps .................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix A: CAG Application Form ................................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix B: Development Agreement ........................................................................................................................... 34

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Appendix C: Pre-Development Assessment Plan (PDAP) ........................................................................................ 34 Appendix D: Archaeological Report ................................................................................................................................ 34

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Introduction A Situation Assessment is an analysis of the local context around a project, to help Raleigh Parks staff determine the best way to effectively engage the community in a collaborative process. Situation Assessments are used as an opportunity to identify key stakeholders and any issues or opportunities that are important to the community that will be affected by the planning process. Situation Assessments can be an opportunity to study the historical and cultural context of a particular project or community and to proactively identify and address any issues that may be contentious during the planning process.

The situation assessment also identifies the Community Advisory Group (CAG), which is a membershipspecific committee that provides oversight of the project planning process and ensures that the decisions made include a broad representation of community and stakeholders impacted by the project. CAG members help disseminate and facilitate communication between the community and planning staff.

Project Overview

The Forestville Road Park Property (4909 Forestville Rd) is an approximately 25-acre undeveloped site, located in Raleigh east of the Neuse River, near the intersection of Forestville Road and Buffaloe Road. The Forestville Road Park Property was acquired by the City of Raleigh in 2004, in anticipation of future development in the area, with the intention that the property would be used as a public park. In recent years, numerous development proposals have been approved in the vicinity of the property, and surrounding land-use is rapidly transitioning from agricultural and low-density residential to moderate density, multifamily, and commercial mixed-use, with hundreds of residential units to be developed within walking distance of the park site. A master plan for the Forestville Road Park Property will provide a roadmap for future development of the park site, ensuring that current and future residents of this area have adequate access to open space, natural resources, and recreational facilities. The master plan will thoroughly investigate the historical significance and natural resource value of the site and any existing features, providing guidance for stewardship, preservation, and storytelling for the benefit of future generations. Given that the parcel is a portion of what was once a 600acre plantation, historic and cultural interpretation will be a key aspect of this master plan. Potential for historic designations of the property will be further evaluated during the planning process.

Funding

A development agreement (see Appendix B) associated with the rezoning of an adjacent property, located at 7640 Oak Hill Drive (Wake County PIN 1746635571), was approved by Raleigh City Council on May 16, 2023. The development agreement, between City of Raleigh and Capital Properties of Raleigh, LLC (the developer) and Pippin Properties, LLC (the owner), was recorded with the Wake County Register of Deeds on August 9, 2023. The development agreement stipulates that the developer will make a donation to the City in the amount of $600,000 to facilitate the planning, design, and/or development of the Forestville Road property. The development agreement notes that the property at Oak Hill Drive will be developed with up to 230 residential townhouses and acknowledges that the park, once developed, will be an amenity and benefit to the future

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

residents of the property. The developer shall remit the donation to Raleigh Parks prior to the issuance of any building permit for the residential property. The development agreement includes the following:

The Park Donation shall be dispersed by the City for the planning, design, and/or development of the Park to include, but not be limited to, one or more of the following items: •

Master Plan for the Forestville Road Park: Preparation of the master plan of the Park, to include, but not be limited to, public engagement, consulting services, environmental and cultural analysis, conceptual development of the future programming and public amenities.

•

Master Plan and Cultural Site and Structure Stabilization: If during the master plan process the structures located onsite are deemed historic, and reasonably salvageable for interpretation purposes, to be determined by the City in its sole discretion, the City may engage resources for consulting services and specialized contractors for the stabilization of the historic site and structures located within the future Park.

•

Master Plan and Schematic Design: Preparation of schematic Park plans to a 15% design detail level, including by not limited to estimated construction costs and anticipated park amenities.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Planning Context Park System Context

Forestville Road Park is located in Northeast Raleigh, east of the Neuse River and near the eastern extent of Raleigh’s city limits and extra-territorial jurisdiction. The park is located within Council District B.

This site is one of several undeveloped park properties east of the Neuse River, intended to expand park access as this area of the city continues to grow and develop in the future. The master planning process will need to balance the needs and expectations of existing residents while preparing to meet the needs of future citizens who will call this area home.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

As illustrated by the Park Vicinity Map above, there are no other public parks within a mile of the Forestville Road Park Property. This property will serve as the primary neighborhood park destination for most surrounding residents and should be expected to provide a variety of core park experiences.

The nearest developed parks are Buffaloe Road Athletic Park (2.7 miles, by road network distance), Horseshoe Farm Nature Preserve (4.1 miles, by road network distance), and River Bend Park (4.5 miles, by road network distance). These parks provide access to a variety of destination or specialized park experiences that likely do not need to be replicated at Forestville Road Park. For example, competition athletic fields available at Buffaloe Road Athletic Park may be sufficient to meet the needs of the local community.

The nearby undeveloped park properties are Watkins Road (38 acres, 2.3 miles north), Hodges Mill Creek (49 acres, 4.3 miles east), and Alvis Farm (100 acres, 4.1 miles southwest). Future planning and development of these properties will provide an opportunity to supplement the offerings planned for Forestville Road Park, alleviating some of the pressure on this relatively small property to provide a wide variety of park experiences.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Park Experiences The scale and location of the Forestville Road Park Property are most compatible with the development of core neighborhood-based park experiences. Destination facilities and specialized experiences are most likely a better fit for future development at larger park sites in the area, or they may already be provided at nearby parks, such as Buffaloe Road Athletic Park.

The specific amenities planned for Forestville Road Park should be informed by the site’s natural features, as explored in the Pre-Development Assessment Plan, and respond to needs expressed by the local community through engagement and collaborative design. There is also a significant opportunity to showcase the site’s historical and cultural context through the development of interpretive elements and targeted preservation of historical features. More information on the specific park amenities already provided at nearby parks are available in the PreDevelopment Assessment Plan (see Appendix C).

Current and Future Land Use

Forestville Road Park Property is located in one of the most rapidly transitioning areas of the city, with dramatic changes to land use patterns already occurring and expected to continue. Traditionally agricultural and rural residential, many of the surrounding properties have been rezoned to provide for more dense residential development, townhomes, and 3-4 story multifamily apartments. Additional multifamily and commercial mixed-use development along Buffaloe Road will dramatically change the character of this area in the coming years.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

The map above illustrates some of the development proposals currently under review or recently approved within one mile of the Forestville Road Park Property. These developments will add significant residential density and future users of this park.

The table below demonstrates the significant increase in local population anticipated with just a selection of these proposed developments: Development

New Proposed Residential Units

The Townes at Milburnie Ridge (North)

220

Solis Buffalo Rd Multifamily

322

Milburnie Ridge (South)

165

The Parc @ 540

164

Fifth Oak Multifamily

240

Buffaloe Bend

412

Chapel Townes

338

Total:

1861

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Raleigh Street Plan – Oak Hill Drive An early goal of the master plan process will be to gain clarity on the City of Raleigh’s street network plans in this area, specifically as it relates to Oak Hill Drive. Raleigh’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan contains the blueprint for the City’s transportation system. The Street Plan supports the development of a connected, well-designed street network that provides safe and efficient multimodal transportation choices. Oak Hill Drive, which runs along the entire northern boundary of Forestville Road Park Property, is designated in Raleigh’s Street Plan as a future proposed Neighborhood Street, connecting Forestville Road and Old Milburnie Road. The master plan process for Forestville Road Park will investigate the implications of this planned street designation, which could have significant impact on the configuration of the park’s design, as well as the cost of future park development. If it is determined that the development of a Neighborhood Street in this location would have substantial adverse impacts on the development of the park, Raleigh Parks may wish to pursue an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would remove this designation.

If the future street designation is not removed, then the master plan should anticipate the future costs that would be required for street improvements and adjust the park’s design accordingly, including site layout and preferred entrance/exit location(s).

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Site Analysis There is currently a single entrance point to the Forestville Road Park Property, off of Forestville Road onto Oak Hill Drive, which consists of a dirt road running along the northern boundary of the site. There is no parking on site. The landscape of the Forestville Road Park Property is predominantly forested, with a stream that bisects the site. The western portion of the property contains several existing structures, one of which is of potential historical value.

Natural Resources

The Forestville Road Park property encompasses approximately 25 acres of undeveloped habitat – primarily mixed pine/hardwood forests and regenerating old fields. There are also numerous instances of rock outcrops (visible exposure of bedrock) and upland seeps (areas of groundwater discharge, which support diverse habitats) onsite. These unique microhabitats should be investigated further during the planning process, to identify specific locations to prioritize for protection.

There are also instances of flora onsite that reflect the agrarian and homestead history of the property, including patches of yucca and a small grove of pecan trees of significant size, estimated to be at least 100 years old. Refer to the Pre-Development Assessment Plan (PDAP) in Appendix C for more information about the plant and wildlife communities observed onsite, as well as recommendations for areas of restricted development.

The most significant hydrologic feature existing within the Forestville Road Property is the blue-line stream that bisects the central portion of the property and flows south to north. This unnamed tributary flows northward to a semi-permanent impoundment pond, located on private property, and eventually reaches Hodges Mill Creek. The tributary is fed, as it meanders through the site, by several ephemeral and intermittent stream channels with variable flow, primarily driven by precipitation events. There are two conspicuous intermittent channels contained with the tract that flow into the blue-line stream; one channel that collects the drainage from the eastern portion of the tract and flows west towards the primary stream, and another channel that collects the drainage from the western portion of the tract and flows east towards the primary stream. There is observational evidence that these intermittent channels are also fed by groundwater, via spring heads and seeps; however, it is difficult to identify the origins of the potential subsurface-to-surface flow.

The majority of the site consists of gently sloping areas (0-8.75%) and strongly sloping areas (8.75%-17.6%); however, significant portions of the site are characterized as gently steep slopes (26.8%-38.4%) and moderately steep slopes (38.4%-60.1%), which are found along the main blue-line stream and along the tributary that flows into the stream from the eastern part of the property.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Cultural Resources The Forestville Road Park Property was once part of an approximately 600-acre plantation owned by Kearney Upchurch. Upchurch’s possession of the land dates to at least 1838, when he purchased a large tract along the Neuse River and extending east from John Perry. Before his death, Kearney passed control of the property to his son, James Upchurch, who subsequently passed the land to his son, William Ivan Upchurch. The land was subdivided in 1966, following Ivan’s death two years prior. At this time, Hallie Upchurch Montague received the property now identified as 4909 Forestville Road. The City of Raleigh acquired the property in 2004.

The property is particularly significant in its connection to nineteenth century African American history in Raleigh (at that time Wake County). Kearney Upchurch was an aspiring planter who increasingly invested in enslaved labor in the decades before the Civil War. The 1840 census shows two enslaved individuals (one male and one female, both between ages of 10 and 24) and two free people of color (both male, between ages of 10 and 24) living on the Kearney Upchurch property. The plantation population climbed steadily over the next two decades. Census records show an increase to ten people held in bondage in 1850 and a further increase to twenty people held in bondage a decade later in 1860.

Although the census failed to identify enslaved people by name or relationship, the ages and genders recorded in the slave schedules/census records suggest multiple family units lived and labored together on the Upchurch plantation. The population rise from 1840 to 1860 likely resulted from natural increase, as well as purchase. Primary source documents, including two Works Progress Administration (WPA) interviews with former slaves recorded in 1937, indicate that Kearney Upchurch participated in the market, specifically selling (and presumably buying) individuals at auction. Georgianna Foster, who was born into slavery on the Upchurch property, recalled her mother saying that: “They

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

gathered slaves together like they did horses and sold them on the block. Mother said they carried some to Rolesville in Wake County and sold them. They sold Henry Temples and Lucinda Upchurch from master’s plantation, but they carried them to Raleigh to sell them.” Similarly, William George Hinton, who was enslaved on a nearby farm, remembered a time when he “saw a slave named Lucinda, sold to old man Askew, a speculator, by Kearney Upchurch. I saw them carry her off”.

The individuals enslaved on the Upchurch property were also part of a larger community network that spanned neighboring plantations. Georgianna Foster’s parents, for instance, were married but lived on adjacent (or nearby) plantations. While Georgianna and her mother Nancy “belonged” to Kearney Upchurch, her father, Axiom Wilder, labored for Bob Wilder. Once emancipation arrived in 1865, Axiom and Nancy swiftly united and moved their family to “Mr. Bob Perry’s plantation and stayed there many years”. According to Georgianna, her parents disliked their former owners—she reported that “living at master’s was hard”—but thought that Bob Perry was “a good man”. Perry’s reputation was likely known via the community grapevine during slavery, an awareness that impacted the family’s choice to relocate as they moved into freedom.

Upchurch descendants suggest that a cabin located in the central section of the property bears a potential link to the site’s antebellum African American history. While deconstructing a tenant house on the eastern side of the property in the late 1960s, Joe Montague, husband of Hallie Upchurch Montague, discovered what appeared to be an older cabin encased within the tenant house. Mr. Montague reclaimed the timbers and used them to construct a log cabin, which remains to this day, on a separate section of the property. The family hypothesized that the old structure discovered by Mr. Montague may have been a dwelling of an enslaved person. This is partially based on the WPA interview with Georgianna Foster where she recalled that “we lived in little log houses” on the plantation. Brett Sturm with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office visited the site with City staff in February 2023. He noted some logs that possibly dated to the antebellum era but also a number of other planks of varying ages. In addition, he determined that the design did not suggest an exact replication of a former structure.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

The Forestville Road Park project was taken to the Research Committee of the Raleigh Historic Development Commission on February 5, 2025, as an initial step exploring the possibility of historic designation for the cabin and/or property as a whole. It was determined that there was not sufficient information/evidence available to proceed with the historic designation application process at this time. Staff is continuing to explore the significance of the cabin.

Additionally, an archaeological survey was completed in 2010 by Environmental Services, Inc., which identified three sites of potential interest on the property. Reference Appendix D for the full archaeological report.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Community Framework Raleigh’s equity metrics encompass multiple dimensions, helping to identify where disparities exist and where resources should be allocated to close those gaps. This approach ensures that park investments are made in communities that need them most and that all residents have access to the benefits of public parks.

1. Park Demand & Walkability a. Park demand and walkability are critical factors in ensuring equitable access to parks across Raleigh. These concepts help identify areas where residents are most in need of nearby recreational spaces and ensure that park resources are distributed fairly throughout the city. Walkability refers to the ability of residents to access parks within a reasonable walking distance, typically a 10-minute walk, which is considered the ideal standard for urban parks. However, given Raleigh’s car-centric infrastructure, this walkability goal must be balanced with the reality that not all areas of the city can be served solely by walking. To address this, Raleigh Parks also measures access to parks within a 5-minute drive for areas where a walkable connection is not feasible. b. Walkability is directly linked to the concept of equity in park access. Communities with higher walkability to parks tend to have better public health outcomes, including increased physical activity, mental wellness, and social engagement. For Raleigh, this means prioritizing the creation of safe, accessible walking paths and greenways that connect neighborhoods to parks, ensuring that people can easily and safely walk, roll, or bike to these spaces. The goal is to make sure that everyone, regardless of income, mobility, or car ownership, has access to nearby green space that promotes health, well-being, and community connectivity.

c. In evaluating the level of park demand and walkability, Raleigh Parks considers:

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

i. Population Density: Higher-density areas often need more park space to meet residents' recreational needs, particularly where there is limited access to private open space.

ii. Age Dependency: Areas with high populations of children (<18 years old) and elders (>65 years old) require nearby park access and specific amenities tailored to these age groups.

iii. Zero-Car Households: Concentrations of households without cars are prioritized for parks within walking distance, as they may have limited access to distant recreational spaces.

2. Historic Inequity

a. Historical inequities in Raleigh, as in many cities, have resulted in certain communities, particularly BIPOC and low-income neighborhoods, having limited access to park spaces and recreational opportunities. These neighborhoods often face a combination of factors, including geographic isolation, underinvestment in infrastructure, and the legacy of discriminatory practices such as redlining, which have resulted in restricted access to public spaces and resources.

b. To address these issues, Raleigh Parks actively identifies areas where historic inequities have persisted and works to prioritize investments that mitigate these disparities. This includes expanding park access in neighborhoods where residents have historically been excluded from public investment in green spaces, as well as creating programs that specifically engage marginalized communities. By prioritizing the needs of underserved groups, Raleigh Parks is ensuring that these communities benefit from the full range of park experiences that have been disproportionately absent in the past. c. In evaluating the level of historic inequities, Raleigh Parks considers:

i. Race & Ethnicity: Understanding the racial and ethnic composition of neighborhoods helps ensure that historically marginalized communities are prioritized in park access improvements.

ii. Poverty: Areas with high poverty rates are prioritized to reduce barriers to resources and recreational amenities.

iii. Language Isolation: Ensuring parks and programs are accessible to and inclusive of non-English speakers helps make parks more accessible and welcoming to everyone.

3. Environmental Justice

a. Environmental justice focuses on ensuring that all communities—regardless of race, ethnicity, or income level—have equal access to healthy environments, including parks and green spaces. Historically, lower-income communities and communities of color have borne a disproportionate burden of environmental challenges, such as exposure to pollution, lack of tree canopy, and limited access to clean, safe green spaces. These communities are also more likely to

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

suffer from the adverse health effects of environmental hazards, such as elevated heat risk, poor air quality, and flooding due to inadequate stormwater management.

b. Raleigh Parks works to address these environmental injustices by increasing the availability of green spaces in areas that are most vulnerable to climate change and environmental degradation. Key strategies include expanding the tree canopy in low-income areas to mitigate heat island effects, increasing the number of parks in neighborhoods with the least access to green spaces, and improving stormwater management through park infrastructure that doubles as environmental resilience.

c. Additionally, Raleigh Parks recognizes that parks are not just places for recreation—they also play a crucial role in enhancing environmental sustainability and resilience. Expanding green space in underserved communities helps address environmental disparities, such as air and water quality, and offers residents the benefits of nature-based solutions to mitigate climate risks. These efforts contribute to both environmental justice and the health and well-being of the community.

d. In evaluating the level of environmental in/justice, Raleigh Parks considers:

i. Elevated Heat Risk: Areas with high heat exposure benefit from increased green space and tree cover to mitigate health risks.

ii. Tree Canopy Loss: Investing in tree planting in low-canopy areas addresses both climate equity and access to shaded, healthy spaces.

4. Health & Wellness

a. Parks and green spaces have been proven to improve physical and mental health, particularly in urban environments where access to nature is limited. Raleigh Parks is committed to using park spaces to promote overall health and wellness, especially in communities with high levels of health disparities. Research shows that access to parks reduces the risk of chronic diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes, while also improving mental health by reducing stress, anxiety, and depression.

b. Raleigh Parks focuses on creating accessible, well-maintained parks that encourage physical activity and social interaction. In neighborhoods with high rates of chronic illness, parks are designed to provide opportunities for exercise, such as walking trails, sports facilities, and fitness zones, which can help reduce these health disparities. Mental wellness is also a key priority, with parks offering spaces for relaxation, stress relief, and social engagement, which are critical to overall well-being. The mental health benefits of nature are particularly important in communities with limited access to other mental health services.

c. By focusing on these areas—physical health, mental health, and social well-being—Raleigh Parks is not just providing recreational spaces, but also promoting a healthier, more resilient community.

d. In evaluating the level of health and wellness need, Raleigh Parks considers:

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

i. Poor Mental Health: Areas with high mental health needs benefit from the mental health benefits of nearby green spaces and social communities.

ii. Poor Physical Health: High rates of physical health issues are addressed by providing nearby access to recreational facilities that support active living.

Demographic Analysis

A demographic analysis determines the best methods for engaging residents within the project outreach area and any additional resources that may be required. By determining the diversity of a community, engagement staff can create participation methods that can engage different stakeholders productively and create a more inclusive engagement environment.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

There are currently 13,416 people living within a 5-minute drive of the Forestville Road Park Property. This population has a higher median household income than the average of the City of Raleigh. The race and ethnicity breakdown in this area is generally reflective of the City of Raleigh averages. This area has significantly less 20-34 year olds than the average for the City of Raleigh as a whole. Within this population, 81% of people own their home (as opposed to renting), 6% of households are below the poverty level, 20% of households have at least one person with a disability, and 5% speak limited to no English.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Community Summary As part of the Community Advisory Group application, applicants were asked to describe their local community. Below is a summary of these responses: •

• • • • • • •

• •

Bryson Village wonderfully diverse neighborhood! We span a ride range of ages from new families to retirees, and have single adults, large families, and extended families in our neighborhood. We are also very ethnically diverse - it is a true melting pot! There is a trend in our neighborhood away from homeowners to renters, but I believe this is a trend across all neighborhoods, not just our own. I do not see our general diversity declining, fortunately - the renter population is just as varied as our homeowner residents! The residents of Bryson Village are a mix of long-term homeowners, renters, and families, with a blend of age groups. There is a strong sense of community, with people actively engaging in local events, volunteering, and supporting neighborhood initiatives. The neighborhood might have a variety of cultural backgrounds, contributing to a diverse, vibrant atmosphere. Milburnie Ridge residents are very diverse including a lot of families with kids and pets. I don't expect that to change in the future, and family sizes. Our number of units that become rentals is getting high and increasing every year. Milburnie Ridge is fairly new to the Buffaloe area. I moved in November 2022 and the neighborhood was recently finished in August 2024. There is a great mix of young families and professionals in the neighborhood. Our neighborhood, Jackson Plantation, is a mix of retired individuals and young families. I expect our neighborhood to continue to have young families move in. We all love to walk around our neighborhood for movement and most of us travel/drive to other parks regularly. Landover is a family-oriented neighborhood. As children grow, older families may move out, and younger families may move into our neighborhood. We also have retirees as well as young dual income couples. Last, we have working families that also live in our townhomes. Landover is small neighborhood that has been on the outskirts of Raleigh for over a decade. To use most city services, it takes a 10-15 minute drive to reach parks and other facilities. As development has moved eastwards down Buffalo Road the neighborhood has seen an increase in partners and voices for city services growth as well. That voice will get louder as further development is completed. I live in the Wakebrook Estates neighborhood. The residents of this neighborhood have historically been homogeneous. When we first moved here only 5 years ago, most of our neighbors were middle-aged or older and nearly all of them were white. Since then, I have watched that demographic change. More young families have moved in, and as a neighborhood, we are slowly becoming more diverse. I hope and believe that trend will continue over the next five years. The residents in my neighborhood are typically middle-aged adults with teenagers. There are not many young kids in my neighborhood. I don't expect the description to change much, especially because people don't move into my neighborhood a lot, so the description will pretty much stay the same. There is a good mix of races, mostly white and Asian in my neighborhood. My neighborhood, Forestville Farms Subdivision, continues to value family relationships, and being friendly, helpful neighbors. I do not expect that to change in the future as it is a stable community.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Community Engagement Community engagement fulfills the City’s commitment to Raleigh residents by defining goals, identifying the needs of communities, and determining key audiences. It creates an opportunity for City staff to ensure that the decisions made reflect the needs of residents and provides a platform for residents to guide decisions. Public participation can lead to well-informed decisions by allowing decision-makers have complete information – in the form of community knowledge, values, and perspectives obtained from the public – that can be applied to the decision-making process. Decisions that incorporate the perspectives and expertise of all stakeholders are more achievable and sustainable because they consider the needs and interests of all participants, including vulnerable, marginalized, and/or underserved populations. In addition, public participation helps participants better understand project impacts to their community and creates opportunities for participants to become invested in the project outcomes.

Level of Participation

Planning for the public participation process is a crucial step in ensuring that engagement efforts are effective. Defining the goals and objectives for the public participation process provides clarity about the engagement process. It is necessary to identify the role of the public and the level of its participation in the decision-making process, to determine what type of public engagement is needed to reach decisions.

The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum was designed to assist with the selection of the level of participation that defines the public’s role and the public participation goal that will drive the engagement process. Each level of public participation and the accompanying goal on the spectrum suggests that a commitment is being made to the public and that the agency promises to take the identified action that will achieve the goal of the level selected.

This project will be using the Collaborate level of participation. This emphasizes the partnership between community members and the City of Raleigh, wherein a level of decision-making control is delegated to the community involved.

City staff will partner with community members in each aspect of the decision, including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution. The promise to the public is, “We will look to the community for advice and innovation in formulating solutions and will incorporate the advice and recommendations into the decisions, to the maximum extent possible”. The Collaborate level of participation recommends utilization of a Community Advisory Group (CAG), a group that works in partnership with

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

city staff and professional consultants to ensure that the park design and elements meet the specific needs and preferences of the community.

Community Stakeholders The identification of potential stakeholders is an important step in ensuring outreach and engagement efforts are effective, representative, and equitable. Stakeholders are typically individuals, groups, or communities who have a vested interest in, or are affected by, the outcome of a project or decision.

The following groups have been identified as community stakeholders, through a combination of staff research, community suggestions, and intel from Community Advisory Group applications. Engagement with the below groups will continue throughout the master planning process, regardless of representation on the Community Advisory Group. The project team will continue to add to the below list of stakeholders throughout the park planning process. Neighborhoods & HOAs

Landover

Bryson Village

Milburnie Ridge

Forestville Farms

540 West Jackson Plantation Wakebrook Estates Massey Preserve Springfield

Civic Entities

Buffaloe Road Aquatic Center

WCPSS: Forestville Road Elementary School WCPSS: Harris Creek Elementary School WCPSS: River Bend Elementary School WCPSS: River Bend Middle School WCPSS: Neuse River Middle School Raleigh Fire Station 28 WCPL: East Regional Library Knightdale Recreation Center

Communication Strategies

Other Groups & Organizations Afro-American Historical and Genealogical Society, Inc. – NC Triangle Region Chapter Wake County Historical Society Capital Area Preservation, Inc. Upchurch descendants

Paramount Show Stables Red Earth Thunder Dog Training Vision Church Wake Cross Roads Baptist Church Van-Hanh Pagoda – NC Buddhist Temple Grace Baptist Church Acorn Hill Disc Golf Club

Community engagement requires a variety of strategies to effectively reach stakeholders, engage key individuals, and encourage participation. Successful communication strategies consider the diversity of the audiences involved. To ensure that messages are received by and resonate with all community members, it is important to use multiple communication tools and channels.

Communication strategies that have been employed thus far, to promote the master planning process and CAG membership, include: Digital • Project websites at raleighnc.gov and engage.raleighnc.gov • Social Media announcements • Raleigh Parks weekly digital newsletter

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

•

Email outreach to identified community stakeholders

Print • Signs at the park site and adjacent street intersections • Posters at nearby parks, libraries, churches, and local businesses • Rack cards at Raleigh Parks historic sites

Planned future communication strategies include: • CAG working meetings • Public Workshops and Open Houses (offered virtually and in-person) • Pop-up information tables at community events • Online surveys • Public site visits • Mailer notifications for nearby residents • Community Connectors program – intercept surveying

Identified Stakeholder Concerns & Suggestions Below is a summary of concerns and suggestions that staff have received about the Forestville Road Park Property. Quotes have been pulled from Community Advisory Group (CAG) applications and citizen emails.

Concerns •

•

“Traffic and safety concerns related to increased park visitors, especially for pedestrians crossing Forestville Road.” “Ensuring that community voices are adequately represented in the planning process, with transparent decision-making and updates.” “Need for equitable access to green spaces in a rapidly growing area, particularly as other public amenities have not kept pace with development.” “Balancing park development with conservation of natural habitats and local history, particularly in recognition of the site's historical significance.” “Accessibility considerations for individuals with disabilities, families with young children, and older adults to ensure inclusive park use.” “It is a nightmare trying to negotiate traffic along Forestville Road, as it is being adjusted in front of the apartments.” “Traffic impacts and solutions should be included and considered in future documentation, especially with the new Publix shopping center and neighborhoods around the Buffaloe Road and Forestville Road intersection.”

Suggestions •

“Leverage active neighborhood social media groups to keep the community engaged and informed about meetings and opportunities for input.”

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

•

• •

•

“Incorporate elements that reflect the cultural and historical significance of the land, including educational signage and public art from local artists.” “Develop a park that provides multi-generational activities, including spaces for children, families, and seniors.” “Create community-driven features such as native plant gardens, fruit trees, and educational programs about sustainability and local ecosystems.” “Ensure accessibility features, such as inclusive playgrounds and ADA-compliant infrastructure, are prioritized.” “Develop safe connections for walking and biking, including potential greenway links to surrounding neighborhoods.” “Enhance community engagement through volunteer programs, educational events, and local partnerships, including youth groups interested in park beautification.” “Offer diverse recreation opportunities, such as volleyball courts, basketball courts, pickleball, and shaded walking trails.” “Consider adding a small community meeting space to accommodate local events, classes, and social gatherings.” “Continue to ensure transparency in decision-making and provide clear ways for the community to see how their input is being used.”

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Community Advisory Group One of the initial tasks of the master planning process is the identification and recommendation of interested community members for the Community Advisory Group (CAG). Using the data collected from CAG applications, recommendations from other stakeholders, and research and demographic analysis, a list was compiled of potential members.

Criteria for selection to the CAG included residency in the service area of the park, a willingness to commit the time to attend meetings, an interest in the park and its uses, and embodiment of diverse demographics and lived experiences.

Selection Process

The Community Advisory Group Application was open from January 17, 2025 through February 21, 2025. The application can be found in Appendix A. Raleigh Parks staff compiled all complete applications, which were then provided to the Parks Committee, a subcommittee of the Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board. The Parks Committee reviewed the applications and made a recommendation for membership of the Forestville Road Park CAG.

Final approval of the Community Advisory Group will be made by the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board, at the time of the adoption of this Situation Assessment.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Recommended Membership 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Name

Group Represented

Andrew Stephenson

General Community

Bob Edgerton

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board

Diya Patel

Raleigh Youth Council

Iain Burnett

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board

Kevin Lewis

General Community – Town of Knightdale

Brian Ellis

Gabrielle McLoughlin Jenny Harper Kim Davis

General Community

Raleigh Youth Council

Raleigh Historic Resources and Museum Advisory Board General Community

Lauren Neville Smith

General Community

Leah Weaver

General Community

Maria Fadri

General Community

Mikayla Posey

General Community

Roger Montague

Historic Interests

Sarah Jackson

General Community

Taylar Flythe

General Community

Sharmaine Walker

General Community

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Demographic Overview The CAG selection process prioritized the formation of a CAG that generally reflects the demographics of the 5-minute drive service area of the Forestville Road Park Property. The charts below reflect the demographic composition of the Community Advisory Group as selected by the Parks Committee and recommend to the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board.

RACE

Mixed Race

Asian

Black/African American

white

Unknown

1 0

AGE 3

Over 65

45-54

35-44

25-34

15-24

Unknown

2 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

GENDER 6

Male

Female

Unknown

1 0

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Next Steps Raleigh Parks will present the final Situation Assessment to the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board (PRGAB) in March 2025. At this meeting, the PRGAB will also be presented the recommended CAG membership, as selected by the Parks Committee.

The master planning process will officially commence in April 2025 and will consist of four phases: Initial Input + Design Goals, Design Alternatives, Draft Concept Plan + Priorities, and Draft Master Plan. Each phase will involve significant engagement, both with internal City stakeholders and subject matter experts and with the Raleigh community. Community engagement will involve regular meetings and consultations with the CAG, as well as gathering public feedback via online surveys, public meetings, site visits, and a variety of other forums, in order to produce a master plan that both the community and the City of Raleigh can embrace. The completed Master Plan will be shared with PRGAB for review and recommendation to Raleigh City Council. Phase

Initial Input + Design Goals

Design Alternatives

Draft Concept Plan + Priorities

Draft Master Plan Master Plan Adoption

Event

Tentative Date

CAG Meeting 1 – In-Person

April 2025

Online Survey

April 2025 - May 2025

CAG Site Visit - Optional

May 2025

Public Workshop

CAG Meeting 2 – Virtual *Consensus Vote*

April 2025 May 2025

CAG Meeting 3 – In-Person

June 2025

Online Survey

July 2025

Public Workshop

CAG Meeting 4 - Virtual

July 2025 July 2025

CAG Meeting 5 – In-Person

September 2025

Online Survey

September 2025 October 2025

CAG Meeting 7 – Virtual *Consensus Vote*

November 2025

Parks Committee Meeting

January 2026

Public Workshop

CAG Meeting 6 – Virtual *Consensus Vote* CAG Meeting 8 + Celebration – In-Person *Consensus Vote* Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board Meeting City Council Meeting

September 2025 October 2025

December 2025 January 2026

February 2026

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Appendix Appendix A: CAG Application Form Project Description We are excited to work with the community to develop a Forestville Road Park Master Plan that reflects the unique needs and desires of local residents! To facilitate this process, Raleigh Parks is creating a Community Advisory Group (CAG). This group will work in partnership with City staff to ensure that the park design and elements meet the specific needs and preferences of the community. If you are interested in being a part of the CAG, please complete the short application on the "Application" tab below! Application Deadline: Friday, February 21, 2025

The future Forestville Road Park site is located at 4909 Forestville Road, Raleigh, NC 27616. To learn more about this property, visit the project website.

Overview Note: CAG membership is a volunteer-based position. Purpose and Authority of the CAG The purpose of the Forestville Road Park CAG is to represent community interests & validate and report design recommendations to the Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board (PRGAB) for review. Ultimately, the proposed Master Plan will be presented to Raleigh City Council for approval.

CAG Responsibilities

The key responsibilities of the CAG members are to: • • • • •

Represent and consider the interests of the community Assist with public outreach and communication

Review, analyze, prioritize, and incorporate public input

Provide constructive comments and shape agreements to advance design process

Balance interests, resolve conflicts, and collaborate in the development of conceptual designs

Expectations for the CAG members include: • • • •

Attending and fully participating in CAG and public meetings Working as team players

Respecting and seeking to comprehend the perspectives of others Encouraging open thinking and focusing on problem solving

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment • •

Communicating with represented community groups and keeping group members informed of project progress Providing at least one means of contact for timely communication, such as email or phone number

CAG Details

CAG Communication Open communication is encouraged among both the CAG members and between the CAG members and the public. All CAG meetings will be open to public attendance, and there will be opporunity for public comment during each CAG meeting. The CAG can also receive public comments via writing or email.

Raleigh Parks project managers will serve as the primary point of contact for the CAG, regarding project communication (such as feedback gathering, meeting logistics, and meeting minutes documentation and dissemination). Raleigh Parks project managers will be responsible for submitting the proposed Master Plan for PRGAB and City Council reviews and deliberation. CAG members may participate in, or assist with, presentations at PRGAB and/or City Council meetings, as desired. CAG Representation, Appointment, and Withdrawal

CAG membership is intended to be diverse and inclusive, representative of the local community. It shall be comprised of a number of community members, representing varying groups or individuals with interest in the proposed project and reflecting current demographics of the project area (including age, race, gender, educational background, professional and/or personal experience, interest, expertise, and other relevant qualifications that may be related to the characteristics of the proposed project).

Interested residents are encouraged to respond to the “CAG Application”, which will be adverised via multimedia communication methods City-wide, with a special focus on Northeast Raleigh neighborhoods. The project team will compile and review completed applications and will provide completed applications to the Parks Committee of the PRGAB for recommendation of membership selection. Official approval and appointment will occur at a subsequent PRGAB meeting. If a CAG member is no longer able to participate during the project process, they may withdraw or may be removed from from the CAG. Schedule and Duration The planning process is anticipated to occur from March 2025 through January 2026. A series of in-person and virtual CAG meetings will take place throughout the planning process, along with general public engagement events and site visits. All members are expected to attend and fully participate in each CAG meeting, which is critical to avoid project delay. Meeting times, locations, and format will be discussed with CAG members at the initial meeting. At least 50% of the meetings are anticipated to be held in-person, in order to encourage full engagement and collaboration.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Application If you are interested in serving on the Forestville Road Park CAG, please complete the following questionnaire. Your responses will assist in forming a diverse CAG that represents the potential users of the park and its amenities. The CAG will be appointed by the Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board (PRGAB) in March 2025. Raleigh Parks appreciates your interest and involvement!

If you would like a paper copy of this application or need any other accommodations, please reach out to Lauryn Kabrich, Park Planner, at Lauryn.Kabrich@raleighnc.gov or 919-664-9124. 1. Please share your name:* 2. Please share your email:* 3. Please share your phone number:* 4. Please share your address:* 5. What is your preferred contact method: a. Email

b. Telephone c. Other

6. How long have you lived at your current address? a. Less than a year

b. 1-4 years

c. 5-9 years

d. 10+ years

7. Why do you want to serve on the Forestville Road Park CAG?* 8. Do you represent an organization, neighborhood, or civic group? 9. If you represent an organization or civic group, what is the role of the organization or civic group in the local community? 10. If you represent a neighborhood, how would you describe the residents in your neighborhood? Do you expect that description to change in the future? 11. Do you have knowledge or experience in park planning or recreation programming? Do you have any special skills, interests, or background that you feel would help the CAG? If so, please describe.

12. Please suggest other key individuals or organizations that Raleigh Parks should reach out to for potential CAG membership for the Forestville Road Park project. Please include contact information, if available. 13. Please share any other comments or ideas you have regarding the CAG and/or general community engagement for the Forestville Road Park project.

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

* Note: Questions with asterisks required a response; all other questions were optional. Demographic Module The following questions ask about you and your background. This information allows us to get a sense of who our survey has reached and helps us work toward our goal of inclusive engagement. All questions are optional. 1. What is your age? a. Under 15

b. 15-24 c. 25-34

d. 35-44 e. 45-54 f.

55-64

g. Over 65

2. What is your gender identity? a. Male

b. Female

c. Non-binary

3. What is your ethnic identification? a. Hispanic

b. Non-Hispanic

4. What is your racial identity? (Please select all that apply.) a. American Indian/Alaskan Native

b. Asian

c. Black/African American

d. Latino/a/e/x

e. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander f.

White

5. Do you identify as a person with a disability? a. Yes

b. No

6. What is your highest formal education level?

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

a. Less than High School/GED b. High School/GED c. Some College

d. Associate’s Degree e. Bachelor’s Degree f.

Graduate or Professional Degree

7. What is your approximate household income? a. Less than $10,000

b. $10,000 to $14,999

c. $15,000 to $24,999

d. $25,000 to $34,999 e. $35,000 to $49,999

$50,000 to $74,999

g. $75,000 to $99,999

h. $100,000 to $149,999 i. j.

$150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more

8. Do you rent or own your home? a. Rent b. Own

c. Neither

9. I speak English as my first language. a. Yes

b. No

Forestville Road Property – Situation Assessment

Appendix B: Development Agreement Appendix C: Pre-Development Assessment Plan (PDAP) Appendix D: Archaeological Report

Pre-Development Assessment Plan Forestville Property June 2022

PDAP

Forestville Property

Executive Summary The intent of the Pre-Development Assessment Plan (PDAP) is to document existing conditions, inventory natural resources, and provide an interim management plan, prior to master planning and park development. The PDAP will provide recommendations for development potential, based on opportunities and constraints of the site as shown in the suitability analysis. The Forestville Road Property is located at 4913 Forestville Road, east of the I-540 loop, and south of US-401. The property is 26.29 acres and is one parcel.

MAP i NEARBY PARKS LEGEND Raleigh Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Forestville 2-Mile Buffer Durant Nature Berkshire Downs West

Horseshoe Farm

5-Mile Buffer Raleigh Parks Developed Parks Undeveloped Parks

The Forestville Road Property is located just within the northeastern boundary of Raleigh’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. There are not any immediately adjacent Homeowner Associations (HOAs), but there are a few in the general vicinity. There are some schools in the area, including River Bend Elementary School and River Bend Middle School. There is also a nearby fire station, off Buffaloe Road.

County & State Parks River Bend

Spring Forest Road

Greenway Trails Other Trails

Green Road

Buffaloe Road Athletic

Marsh Creek

The only current park properties near the Forestville Road Property are undeveloped sites, including the Old Watkins Property and Hodges Mill Creek Property. The next closest parks are river-oriented parks, athletic complexes, and nature preserves.

Marsh Creek Miles

Hill Street

Milburnie

The Neuse River Greenway Trail is the closest greenway trail to the Forestville Road Property. There are no greenway corridors or greenway trails within the Forestville Road Property boundary. There is a nearby corridor and proposed trail along Harris Creek Tributary A, to the north of the site, and there are also several other corridors in the vicinity, including the Harris Creek Corridor, Harris Creek Tributary E Corridor, and the Neuse River Tributary B Corridor.

2 2

PDAP

Forestville Property MAP ii RECOMMENDED SITE SUITABILITY

This park site was formerly part of a 600-acre plantation originally owned by the Upchurch family. Portions of the property contain areas of high potential for archaeological resources.

LEGEND Forestville

Very Limited Development Several structures on the site may be of special historic significance (represented as areas of Very Limited Development on this map), including a log cabin that was possibly the dwelling of enslaved peoples. Further archaeological investigation is recommended prior to any development or ground disturbing activities.

Limited Development Regular Development

0.03

0.05

Miles 0.1

Based on the analysis of the site suitability overlay, the following map delineates approximate areas of the site that are recommended to have very limited, limited, or regular development.

Very Limited Development

Limited Development

Regular Development

Development in these areas are restricted by steep slopes and the areas of the site with historic structures. These areas are not suitable for development, unless for low impact uses such as natural surface trails, historic education, interpretive signage, and invasive removal.

Development in these areas are restricted by the presence of riparian buffers along creek beds and stormwater channels. Development is also restricted until work associated with the Oak Hill Drive improvements is complete, in accordance with the Raleigh Street Plan. These areas are suitable for low impact uses such as paved trails and creek bank stabilization.

These areas have no significant or special imitations on development and are open to most design choices that will facilitate a versatile park property.

Site Suitability Analysis - Development Capacity Area Suitable for Very Limited Development

2.5 Acres

Area Suitable for Limited Development

3.5 Acres

Area Suitable for Regular Development

20 Acres

Total Park Area

26 Acres

3 3

PDAP

Forestville Property

This site’s unique historic nature entails a more complex level of interim management recommendations than usually found within a Pre-development Assessment Plan. This document breaks out the interim management recommendations for the Forestville Road Property into two categories, Cultural Resources and Natural Resources. The Cultural Resources recommendations can be found on page 34. These initial recommendations will be revised and supplemented with additional details at a later date. Pre-Development Assessment Plans are living documents, and interim management recommendations will be updated periodically as staff performs routine monitoring and further site research. More information on the Natural Resources recommendations can be found on page 35 including current management and recommended management for each short-term goal.

Cultural Resources Interim Management Recommendations Short-term Goals 1. Develop an interim protection plan for the structures on site. 2. Evaluate the cultural and historical significance of the existing structures and landscape and define a preferred path forward related to findings. 3. Document the original location of the Log Cabin and conduct further research into its history as a possible slave dwelling. 4. Re-evaluate need for the proposed extension of Oak Hill Drive with Raleigh Transportation

Long-term Goals 1. Define a plan for ongoing Historic Preservation of the Log Cabin, and possibly additional structures/ elements pending evaluation. 2. Identify interpretive opportunities and scope. 3. Conduct archaeological work in the Log Cabin’s original location if determined to be on City property. This holds potential for a greater understanding of the site and specifically antebellum African American history in Raleigh.

Natural Resources Interim Management Recommendations Short-term Goals 1. Implementation of additional monitoring and mapping efforts, to aid in the development of biological inventories, identify unauthorized access and use, and identify potential threats to the natural resources found onsite. 2. Evaluation and control of invasive plant species. 3. Evaluation of access points and access road conditions.

Long-term Goals

Log Cabin (more on historic structures can be found in the Cultural Inventory section on Pg. 25)

1. Continued collection of biological data, through ecological monitoring and mapping efforts. 2. Retention and protection of documented significant plant and animal species. 3. Improvement of wildlife habitat and natural plant communities, through appropriate natural resource management practices.

4 4

Table of Contents Table of Contents

1 2

Planning Process . .Summary . . . . . . . . . ................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Executive Park Planning and Development Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Pre-Development Assessment and Management Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Project Background .............................................................16

Cultural Resource Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Method-Kent Historical Overview . .Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 . . 25 MKC1 - Kent Road and Method Road, Food Lion Site .............................. 97 Site Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Introduction . . . . . . .to . .Study . . . . . Scope . . . . . .and . . . Goals . . . . . .....................................16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Introduction

Multimodal Link .......................................................................... 102

Regional Context City-wide context . . . . . . . . . ........................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188

Evolution of Wake BRT: Western Boulevard Corridor ...............21 Overlapping Planning and Development Efforts ...................... 22 Vicinity . . . . . . . . .Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 . 9 Existing . . . . . . . . .Overview . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Nearby Parks. .Process Public

. . . . . . Road, . . . . . .Kmart . . . . . . .Site . . . ........................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 . . 25 Former Structures MML1 - Blue . Ridge

Context Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 4

Nearby Greenways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CC1 - Jones Franklin Rd., Harris Teeter Site ............................................. 112 State Historic Preservation Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 CC2 - Wolfwood Drive ................................................................................ 118

Park Access, and Demographic Analysis. . . . . . . . 28 CC3 -Social BashfordEquity, Road ..................................................................................124 Corridorwide Park Access AnalysisRecommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 . . . 28

Urban . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Current Zoning.Design Design Vision . . . . . . .and . . . . .Corridor . . . . . . . . . .Themes . . . . . . . . ............................................36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Future Land Use Introduction to the Character Zones ......................................... 42

Street Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Site Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Urban Design Recommendations ...............................44

Aerial Imagery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Downtown ..................................................................................... 44

Site Images Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D1 - Wilmington Street and Salisbury Street ...........................................46 . . . . . . . .Street . . . . . . .and . . . .McDowell . . . . . . . . . Street . . . . . . ................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 17 Hydrology D2. - . .Dawson . . . . . . ..............................................................................................58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Soils.Parks P1 - S. Saunders St. and Lake Wheeler Rd. .............................................. 60 Topography and Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 P2 - Section A - Boylan Ave.........................................................................64 . . - . .Section . . . . . . . B . . - . .Dorothea . . . . . . . . . Dr. . . . .....................................................................64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Utilities. .P2

P3 - SectionInventory C - The RR Bridge 74 Natural Resource . . . . .................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 P4 - Ashe Avenue ......................................................................................... 81 Wildlife Species Observed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 P5 - Pullen Road .......................................................................................... 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 PlantCampus Species Observed .........................................................................................86

C1 - Heritage Avent Ferry Road . ................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 23 NC Natural Program.

CaryStructures Connector . . . . . ...........................................................................110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Existing

Area-Specific Guidance..............................................................................132 Equity Priority Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Street Connectivity................................................................................... 134 10-Minute Walk Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Bike Connectivity....................................................................................... 136 Environmental Sustainability . . . . . . . ................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138 . . . 31 5-Minute Drive Demographics

Suitability Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Implementation Suitability Overlay Diagram . ................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140 . . . 32

Elements of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 . . . 33 Recommended SiteSuccessful Suitability. . . .Implementation

...................................................................142 InterimImplementation Management Plan Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Funding Tools .............................................................................. 160 Cultural Resources Interim Management Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Alignment with City Plan .......................................................... 165 . . ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 . . . 34 Natural Resources Interim Management Recommendations Policies/Actions Recommendations Summary

Appendix A: Archaeological Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Appendix B: System Integration Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Project Team Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5 5

PDAP

Planning Process As shown in the Park Planning and Development Process timeline on this page, a Pre-Development Assessment Plan (PDAP) is conducted on an undeveloped park property, after the site has been acquired by the City of Raleigh and before any master planning for the site occurs. The intent of the Pre-Development Assessment Plan (PDAP) is to document existing conditions, inventory natural and cultural resources, and provide an interim management plan, prior to master planning and park development. The PDAP will provide recommendations for development potential based on opportunities and constraints of the site, as shown in the suitability analysis.

Forestville Property

ONGOING EFFORT PRELIMINARY RESEARCH GUIDING PLANNING & Strategic Plan Comprehensive Plan Park System Plan Budgeting

LAND ACQUISITION Site Research & Investigation Environmental Site Assessment Negotiation & Transaction Pre-Development Assessment Plan

FUNDING PRIORITIES

ONGOING INTERIM MANAGEMENT

MASTER PLANNING Public Engagement Planning Capital Area Greenway Public Engagement City Council and PRGAB Approval

DESIGN

Public Engagement Schematic Design Approval Construction Documentation Permitting

MASTER PLAN APPROVAL

SCHEMATIC DESIGN APPROVAL PERMITTING

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT BIDDING

Bidding Contract Execution Construction Administration Close Out

CONSTRUCTION CLOSE OUT

MAINTENANCE

Ongoing Facility Maintenance Periodic Inspections Repairs & Replacements

PROJECT START PARK PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5

6 6

PDAP

The Pre-Development Assessment Plan (PDAP) includes context and site analysis, as well as data acquired by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the NC Heritage Program. Multiple site visits occur as part of this process, during which City staff document site opportunities and constraints and conduct natural and cultural resource inventory. While staff develop the PDAP document, they conduct a preliminary Nature Preserve Assessment, as well as developing site suitability diagrams and interim management recommendations. Once the PDAP document is reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board (PRGAB), short-term management of the site begins. This includes, but is not limited to, monitoring and mapping, invasive species control, and a full Nature Preserve Criteria Evaluation. On average, short-term management takes 3-5 years, after the PDAP document is reviewed by PRGAB. New information gathered during the short-term management, as well as the results of the Nature Preserve Criteria Evaluation, are then updated in the PDAP document. After short-term management is complete, the site moves into long-term management. This includes, but is not limited to, conservation of the site’s plants, animals, and their habitats. On average, long-term management takes place 5-10 years after the PDAP document is reviewed by PRGAB. New information gathered during the long-term management is then updated in the PDAP document. At this point, the site usually moves onto site master planning, although some sites may remain in long-term management past the 5-10 year mark. When the site moves onto the master planning phase, information from the PDAP will be included in the Situation Assessment, which is the first step of the master planning process.

Forestville Property

PRELIMINARY RESEARCH Context Analysis Site Analysis State Historic Preservation Office NC Heritage Program

SITE VISITS

Site Opportunities & Constraints Natural Resource Inventory Cultural Resource Inventory

DOCUMENT DEVELOPMENT

Preliminary Nature Preserve Assessment Site Suitability Interim Management Recommendations

REVIEW BY PARKS, RECREATION AND GREENWAY ADVISORY BOARD

SHORT-TERM MANAGEMENT

Monitoring & Mapping Invasive Species Control Nature Preserve Criteria Evaluation

LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT

UPDATE DOCUMENT

3-5 YEARS UPDATE DOCUMENT

Conservation of Plants, Animals, and Their Habitats

SITE MASTER PLANNING

5-10 YEARS

Situation Assessment

PRE-DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROCESS 7 7

PDAP

Forestville Property

Introduction The intent of the Pre-Development Assessment Plan (PDAP) is to document existing conditions, inventory natural resources, and provide an interim management plan, prior to master planning and park development. The PDAP will provide recommendations for development potential, based on opportunities and constraints of the site, as shown in the suitability analysis.

MAP 1 CITY-WIDE CONTEXT LEGEND Raleigh Extra-territorial Jurisdiction Forestville

The Forestville Road Property is located at 4913 Forestville Road, just within Raleigh’s extra-territorial jurisdiction, east of the I-540 loop and south of US401. The property is 26.29 acres and is one parcel.

Raleigh Parks Developed Parks Undeveloped Parks County & State Parks Greenway Trails Other Trails

Miles 0

8 8

PDAP

Forestville Property

Context Analysis The Forestville Road Property is located just within the northeastern boundary of Raleigh’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. There are not any immediately adjacent Homeowner Associations (HOAs), but there are a few in the general vicinity. There are some schools in the area, including River Bend Elementary School and River Bend Middle School. There is also a nearby fire station, off Buffaloe Road.

MAP 2 VICINITY LEGEND Raleigh Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Forestville Raleigh Parks Developed Parks Undeveloped Parks

It is recommended that during community engagement processes for the development of the Forestville Road Property outreach is conducted through both the nearby HOAs and the elementary and middle schools.

Greenway Trails Raleigh Neighborhoods Places of Interest Fire Departments Schools Cardinal Grove HOA

Universities/Colleges

Stoneridge HOA

Miles 0

0.25

0.5

Foxcroft

9 9

PDAP

The only park properties near the Forestville Road Property are undeveloped sites, including the Old Watkins Property and Hodges Mill Creek Property. The next closest parks are river-oriented parks, athletic complexes, and nature preserves. It is recommended that any future planning of the Forestville Road Property considers how this property could compliment the system of parks already in this area, as well as the potential of other undeveloped park properties.

Forestville Property

MAP 3 NEARBY PARKS LEGEND Raleigh Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Forestville 2-Mile Buffer Durant Nature Berkshire Downs West

Horseshoe Farm

5-Mile Buffer Raleigh Parks Developed Parks Undeveloped Parks County & State Parks

River Bend

Spring Forest Road

Greenway Trails Other Trails

Green Road

Buffaloe Road Athletic

Marsh Creek

Marsh Creek Miles

Hill Street

Milburnie

10 10

PDAP

The following tables provide information on which park experiences are currently provided by other parks in this area of the city and which park experiences are not currently available to residents in this vicinity. This information can be used to guide the future master planning of the Forestville Road Property. Experiences included in the Forestville Road Master Plan should be consistent with the vision and goals established for Forestville Road Park and should serve the needs of the immediate community, while also complementing the facilities and amenities provided by other units of the park system in this area. The first table to the right provides a list of park experiences that are not currently provided by any City of Raleigh park locations within a 5-mile radius of the Forestville Road Property. This list represents some of the potential experiences that are currently “missing” from the park and recreation opportunities provided in this area. The experiences in this list should be considered for inclusion in the master plan, since they would provide new, unique opportunities for residents in this vicinity. The second table to the right provides information on park experiences that are already provided within a 2-mile radius of this property. When planning for development of Forestville Road Park, it may not be necessary to replicate some of the facilities and amenities (playground, canoe and kayak launch, etc.) already provided within a 2-mile radius of this site. The third table, on the following page, lists all park experiences currently provided within a larger 5-mile radius of this site. This information can be used to further inform the future master plan of Forestville Road Park. It is recommended that these lists be updated at the start of any future planning process.

Forestville Property Not Provided Within 5 Miles

Provided Within 2 Miles

Park Experiences Car Charging Station Splashpad Swimming Pool - Outdoor Active Adult Center Arts Center Environmental Education Center Teen Center Concessions Dance Studio Library Room Indoor Stage Bocce Disc Golf Handball Horseshoe Outdoor Game Tables Table Tennis - Indoor Table Tennis - Outdoor Throwing Pit - Discus/ Shotput Community Garden Cistern Constructed Wetland Historic Exhibit Historic Signage Historic Site Museum Boat Rentals Basketball - Indoor (Half Court) Basketball - Outdoor (Half Court) Batting Cage Multipurpose Court Pickleball Court - Indoor Pickleball Court - Outdoor Tennis Center Volleyball - Grass Amusement Train Carousel Fitness Station/Equipment - Outdoor Kiddie Boat Ride Pedal Boats Rock Climbing/Bouldering Playgrounds: Nature-Oriented Walking Path BMX Track

Experience Bike Repair Station Comfort Station Outdoor Water Fountain - People Outdoor Water Fountain - Dogs Aquatic Center Swimming Pool - Indoor Pollinator/ Native Garden Canoe & Kayak Launch River Wetland Creek Ballfields Multipurpose Field Open Play Field Dog Park Park Bench Picnic Table Picnic Shelter Playgrounds: 2-5 Playgrounds: 5-12 Track - Competitive/Lined Trails - Paved Trails - Natural Surface/Unpaved Trails - Loop Bleachers

Park Providing the Experience Riverbend Buffaloe Road Athletic, Riverbend Buffaloe Road Athletic, Riverbend Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic Riverbend Buffaloe Road Athletic, Riverbend Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic Riverbend Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic, Riverbend Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic Riverbend Buffaloe Road Athletic, Riverbend Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic

11 11

PDAP

Comfort Station

Parks Providing the Experience Riverbend Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road, Horseshoe Farm, Marsh Creek, Riverbend, Spring Forest Road

Grill Educational Signage

Berkshire Downs West, Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road, Hill Street, Marsh Creek, Spring Forest Road Durant Nature Preserve, Horseshoe Farm

Bike Repair Station

Outdoor Water Fountain - People

Outdoor Water Fountain - Dogs Aquatic Center Swimming Pool - Indoor

Community Center Neighborhood Center Computer Lab

Fitness Center/ Weight Room Rentable Building Pollinator/ Native Garden Sensory Garden

Bio-Retention Pond/Rain Garden Green Roof

Permeable Pavement Historic Structure Visitor Center Canoe & Kayak Launch Fishing Access Wildlife Viewing Nature Education Nature-Oriented Exhibit Nature-Oriented Educational Signage River Lake

Berkshire Downs West, Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm, Marsh Creek, Milburnie

Creek

Berkshire Downs West, Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm, Marsh Creek

Other Natural Water

Provided Within 5 Miles Experience

Wetland

Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road, Hill Street, Marsh Creek, Riverbend, Spring Forest Road

Ballfields Basketball - Indoor (Full Court) Basketball Experience- Outdoor (Full Court) Multipurpose Field Bike Repair Station

Open Play Field Comfort Station Tennis Courts Volleyball - Indoor Grill

Volleyball - Sand Educational Signage Dog Park Ampitheatre Outdoor Water Fountain - People

Buffaloe Road Athletic, Hill Street

Outdoor Water Fountain - Dogs

Buffaloe Road Athletic Buffaloe Road Athletic

Park BenchPool - Indoor Swimming

Green Road, Marsh Creek

Hill Street Marsh Creek Green Road, Marsh Creek

Durant Nature Preserve Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road, Horseshoe Farm, Marsh Creek Durant Nature Preserve Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm

Hill Street

Aquatic Center

Community Center Picnic Table

Neighborhood Center Computer Lab Picnic Shelter

Fitness Center/ Weight Room Playgrounds: 2-5 Rentable Building

Playgrounds: 5-12

Pollinator/ Native Garden Track - Non-Competitive/Lined Sensory Garden Track - Competitive/Lined

Bio-Retention Pond/Rain Garden Green Roof Trails - Paved

Milburnie, Riverbend Durant Nature Preserve, Milburnie Durant Nature Preserve, Horseshoe Farm Durant Nature Preserve, Horseshoe Farm Durant Nature Preserve, Horseshoe Farm Durant Nature Preserve, Horseshoe Farm Buffaloe Road Athletic, Horseshoe Farm, Milburnie, Riverbend

Permeable Pavement Historic Structure Trails - Natural Surface/Unpaved Visitor Center Canoe Kayak Launch Trails - & Loop Fishing Access Inline Skating Wildlife MountainViewing Bike Trails Nature Education Skate Park Nature-Oriented Exhibit Bleachers Nature-Oriented Educational Signage River

Durant Nature Preserve

Lake

Horseshoe Farm, Spring Forest Road

Horseshoe Farm Durant Nature Preserve

Forestville Property

Durant Nature Preserve Buffaloe Road Athletic, Green Road, Marsh Creek, Spring Forest Road Green Road, Marsh Creek

Green Road Parks Providing the Experience Buffaloe Road Athletic Riverbend

Durant Green Nature Road, Hill Street, Green Horseshoe Riverbend, BuffaloeNature Road Preserve, Athletic, Durant Preserve, Road,Farm, Horseshoe Farm, Spring Forest Road Marsh Creek, Riverbend, Spring Forest Road Green Road, Spring Forest Road Berkshire Downs West, Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road, Hill Street, Marsh

Marsh Creek, Creek Spring Forest Road

Durant RoadFarm Durant Nature Nature Preserve, Preserve, Green Horseshoe

Buffaloe Buffaloe Road Road Athletic Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road, Hill Street, Marsh Durant Nature Preserve Creek, Riverbend, Spring Forest Road Buffaloe Road Athletic, Hill Street

Berkshire Downs West, Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Green Buffaloe Road Athletic Road, Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm, Marsh Creek, Riverbend, Spring Forest Road Buffaloe Road Athletic Berkshire Downs West, Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Green Green Road, Marsh Creek Road, Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm, Marsh Creek, Spring Forest Road

Hill Street Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road, Hill Street, Marsh Creek Horseshoe Farm, Marsh Creek, Spring Forest Road Green Road, Marsh Creek Durant Nature Preserve, Hill Street, Marsh Creek, Riverbend Durant Nature Preserve Berkshire Downs West, Buffaloe Road Athletic, Green Road, Hill Street, Marsh Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road, Horseshoe Farm, Creek, Riverbend, Spring Forest Road Marsh Creek Spring Forest Road Durant Nature Preserve Buffaloe Road Athletic Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Horseshoe Farm, Milburnie, Hill Street Spring Forest Road Horseshoe Farm, Spring Forest Road Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm, Horseshoe Farm Milburnie Durant Nature Preserve Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Horseshoe Farm, Spring Forest Milburnie, Riverbend Road Durant Nature Marsh Creek Preserve, Milburnie Durant Durant Nature Nature Preserve, Preserve Horseshoe Farm Durant Nature Preserve, Horseshoe Farm Marsh Creek Durant Horseshoe BuffaloeNature Road Preserve, Athletic, Green Road,Farm Marsh Creek, Spring Forest Road Durant Nature Preserve, Horseshoe Farm Buffaloe Road Athletic, Horseshoe Farm, Milburnie, Riverbend

Durant Nature Preserve

Berkshire Downs West, Marsh Creek

Pond

Wetland

Berkshire Downs West, Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm, Marsh Creek, Milburnie

Wetland

Berkshire Downs West, Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm, Marsh Creek, Milburnie

Creek

Berkshire Downs West, Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm, Marsh Creek

Creek

Berkshire Downs West, Buffaloe Road Athletic, Durant Nature Preserve, Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm, Marsh Creek

Durant Nature Preserve

Other Natural Water

Pond

Other Natural Water

Berkshire Downs West, Marsh Creek

Durant Nature Preserve

Buffaloe Road Athletic, Green Road, Marsh Creek, Spring Forest Road Green Road, Marsh Creek

Ballfields Basketball - Indoor (Full Court)

Basketball - Outdoor (Full Court) Multipurpose Field

Green Road Buffaloe Road Athletic

Basketball - Outdoor (Full Court) Multipurpose Field

Green Road Buffaloe Road Athletic

Open Play Field Tennis Courts

Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road, Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm, Riverbend, Spring Forest Road Green Road, Spring Forest Road

Open Play Field Tennis Courts

Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road, Hill Street, Horseshoe Farm, Riverbend, Spring Forest Road Green Road, Spring Forest Road

Marsh Creek

Volleyball - Indoor

Ballfields Basketball - Indoor (Full Court)

Volleyball - Indoor

Volleyball - Sand Dog Park Ampitheatre

Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road

Volleyball - Sand

Buffaloe Road Athletic Durant Nature Preserve

Dog Park Ampitheatre

Buffaloe Road Athletic, Green Road, Marsh Creek, Spring Forest Road Green Road, Marsh Creek

Marsh Creek Durant Nature Preserve, Green Road

Buffaloe Road Athletic Durant Nature Preserve

12 12

PDAP

MAP 3 NEARBY GREENWAYS rrid

LEGEND

Raleigh Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Ha rris Creek Co

Forestville Property

Forestville Developed Parks

Neuse River -

Undeveloped Parks City of Raleigh Greenway Corridor Greenway Easements

NR Harris Creek Trib A Corrid

Greenway Trails

Har k Trib E C

ris Cree

Proposed Trails

Miles 0

0.25

0.5

orridor

Neuse River

Trib B Corridor

13 13

PDAP

Forestville Property MAP 5 FUTURE LAND USE

MAP 4 CURRENT ZONING LEGEND

LEGEND

Raleigh Extra-territorial Jurisdiction

Forestville Raleigh Parks

Forestville

Developed Parks

Raleigh Parks

Undeveloped Parks

Developed Parks Raleigh Zoning

Undeveloped Parks

Residential-1 (R-1)

Future Land Use

Residential-4 (R-4) Residential-6 (R-6)

Community Mixed Use

Residential-10 (R-10)

Institutional

Residential Mixed Use (RX-)

Low Scale Residential

Office Mixed Use (OX-)

Moderate Scale Residential

Neighborhood Mixed Use (NX-)

Medium Scale Residential

Commercial Mixed Use (CX-)

Neighborhood Mixed Use

Industrial Mixed Use (IX-)

Office/Research & Development

Conservation Management (CM)

Public Facilities

Agricultural Productive (AP)

Private Open Space

Heavy Industrial (IH)

Public Parks & Open Space

Manufactured Housing (MH)

Rural Residential

Planned Development (PD)

Special Study Area

Overlay Districts Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD)

Miles 0

0.25

0.5

Special Highway Overlay District-2 (-SHOD-2) Special Highway Overlay District-1 (-SHOD-1)

Miles 0

0.25

0.5

MAP 6 STREET PLAN Current Zoning

LEGEND Raleigh Extra-territorial Jurisdiction

The current zoning surrounding the Forestville Road Property is primarily residential, with some nearby commercial and office mixed-use. There is also manufactured housing adjacent to the site, as well as nearby overlays, including the Special Highway Overlay District.

Forestville Raleigh Parks Developed Parks Undeveloped Parks Street Typology

Future Land Use

Neighborhood Street Neighborhood Street Proposed Avenue 2-Lane, Undivided

The future land use near the Forestville Road Property is still primarily residential, with some nearby commercial and neighborhood mixed-use, as well as public park use along the nearby greenway corridors.

Avenue 2-Lane, Undivided Proposed Avenue 2-Lane, Divided Avenue 2-Lane, Divided Proposed Avenue 4-Lane, Divided

Street Plan

Avenue 4-Lane, Divided Proposed

There are several proposed neighborhood streets in the City of Raleigh Street Plan adjacent to the Forestville Roa Property, including an extension of Oak Hill Drive to Old Milburnie Road. The proposed development of Oak Hill Drive could have significant impacts to the Forestville Rd Property. This proposed neighborhood street may require the dedication of additional right-of-way from the park property in order to accommodate the width of the proposed street section. Development of this road would improve public access to the park property but could also significantly change the character of the site, creating public street frontage along the entire northern property line.

Limited Access Highway

Avenue 6-Lane, Divided

Miles 0

0.25

0.5

14 14

PDAP

Forestville Property

Site Analysis There is an entrance to the site from the west, off of Forestville Road, onto Oak Hill Drive which runs along the northern boundary of the site. There is no current parking on site, except along Oak Hill Drive. The landscape at the Forestville Road Property is mostly forested, with a creek that runs north-south through the site. The western section of the site is the location of several historic structures. More information about these structures can be found in the Cultural Resource Inventory on page 25.

MAP 7 AERIAL IMAGERY LEGEND Forestville

0.03

0.05

Miles 0.1

There are several opportunities and constraints within the Forestville Road Property, as highlighted by the site images found on page 17.

15 15

PDAP

Forestville Property

MAP 8 SITE IMAGES KEY

Site Images LEGEND

Dumping

Boulder

Hole in Oak Hill Drive

Forestville

7 3

0.03

0.05

Miles 0.1

Log Cabin (more on historic structures can be found in the Cultural Inventory Section on Pg. 25)

Large creek

Creek under Oak Hill Drive

Yucca patch

16 16

PDAP

Forestville Property

The most significant hydrologic feature existing within the Forestville Road Property is the blue-line stream than bisects the central portion of the property and flows south to north. The Unnamed Tributary flows northward to a semi-permanent impoundment pond, located on private property, and eventually reaches Hodges Mill Creek. The tributary is fed, as it meanders through the site, by several ephemeral and intermittent stream channels with variable flow, primarily driven by precipitation events. There are two conspicuous intermittent channels contained with the tract that flow into the blue-line stream; one channel that collects the drainage from the eastern portion of the tract and flows west towards the primary stream, and another channel that collects the drainage from the western portion of the tract and flows east towards the primary stream. There is observational evidence that these intermittent channels are also fed by groundwater, via spring heads and seeps; however, it is difficult to identify the origins of the potential subsurface-to-surface flow.

The intermittent stream channels and the primary tributary channel have been significantly impacted by stormwater runoff, as indicated by moderately incised banks and channels, as well as by relatively high loads of deposited sediment. The earthen road that traverses the northern property line (Oak Hill Drive) has been significantly undercut in the area where the primary tributary flows northward beneath the road through a large culvert. During planning site visits, several areas along the Oak Hill Drive roadbed were observed to have been undercut or washed out by the highly variable and dynamic flows within the channel and floodway of the primary tributary. Although the culvert appears to be large enough to accommodate most runoff events, it seems that higher flows from large storm events may have compromised the roadway. These areas will need to be addressed prior to the approval of any regular vehicular traffic and/or future facility development.

MAP 9 HYDROLOGY

LEGEND Forestville USGS Blueline Streams Stormwater Channels

Culvert under Oak Hill Drive roadbed

Wetlands Palustrine- Emergent Palustrine- Forested/Shrub Palustrine- Other Hydrology Areas Lake/Pond

0.03

0.05

Miles 0.1

17 17

PDAP

The most dominant upland soil type occurring within the Forestville Road Property is the Rawlings-Rion complex, which is characterized by well-drained sandy loam soil textures that are non-hydric. These soils and the upland positions they occupy are most suitable for future facility development, given the reduction in flooding risk associated with the rapid drainage capabilities and higher elevations. The upland Rawlings-Rion soils are concentrated along the eastern and western borders of the Forestville Road Property, while the central portion of the tract exhibits a convergence of the topography at lower elevations and contains different soil types and more dynamic hydrology patterns. The central portion of the Forestville Road Property is dominated by the Wake-Rolesville complex soil type, which is characterized by excessively drained loamy sand soil textures that are non-hydric. Although these soils are rated as excessively drained, the high sand component and the dynamic nature of the hydrology in these areas creates an unstable soil environment. These lower-lying areas are subject to significant alluvial pressures, including the movement of sediment via stormwater and the under-cutting/under-wash of the streambanks, and are therefore considered less suitable for future facility development.

Forestville Property MAP 10 SOILS LEGEND Forestville Soils Rg Water Wa

W WaC

WfB

RgD

WfB

0.03

0.05

Miles 0.1

RgC

Smaller portions of the Forestville Road Property, along the easternmost and southern boundaries, exhibit Wedowee-Saw complex soils, which are characterized by well-drained sandy loam soil types and closely resemble the Rawlings-Rion complex soils found elsewhere on the tract. These soils may support future site development but are limited to small areas within the Tract and are most proximate to private property (on the southern boundary) and a public roadway (on the eastern boundary).

RgD

Table of Soils Found Within or Adjacent to Forestville Road Property Boundaries Soil Abbreviation*

Soil Type Name

Drainage Class

Hydric Rating

Rawlings-Rion complex sandy loam

Well-drained

Non-hydric

Wake-Rolesville complex loamy sand

Excessively well-drained

Non-hydric

Wedowee-Saw complex sandy loam

Well-drained

Non-hydric

*Percent-slope indicated by A, B, and C ratings in increasing order. Soils that have been heavily eroded are denoted with “2” after the soil type abbreviation.

18 18

PDAP

Forestville Property

MAP 11 TOPOGRAPHY AND SLOPE 29

LEGEND Forestville 2' Contours3

Index

Terrain: Slope Map 0

Flat (0°) 290

30 0

280

250

LP +

230

220

HP +

240

280

26 0

Intermediate 260

The terrain slopes, from the eastern and western part of the Forestville Road Property towards the creek that runs north-south through the property. The high points (HP) are noted in the eastern and western areas of the property, and the low point (LP) is found in the northern area of the site. Most of the site is gently sloping (0-8.75%) and strongly sloping (8.75-17.6%), but there are areas of gently steep slopes (26.8-38.4%) and moderately steep slopes (38.4-60.1%), found along the main northsouth blue-line stream and along the tributary that flows into the stream from the eastern part of the property.

Nearly level (1°) Gently level (2°) Gently sloping (3° - 5°)

HP +

Strongly sloping (6° - 10°) Gently steep (11° - 15°) Steep (21° - 30°) 320

Very steep (31° - 90°)

270

260

310

Moderately Steep (16° - 20°)

280

8.75

17.6

Slope of terrain (percentage) 26.8 38.4 60.1

→ up to ∞

0.03

0.05

330

Miles 0.1

19 19

PDAP

There are currently no utilities on the Forestville Road Property, per available GIS data.

Forestville Property

MAP 12 UTILITIES

LEGEND Sewer Utilities Gravity Sewer

0.07

0.15

Miles 0.3

20 20

PDAP

Forestville Property

Natural Resource Inventory Wildlife Species Observed The Forestville Road Tract encompasses roughly 25 acres of gently-to-moderately sloping topography, with mixed pine/hardwood forests, regenerating old fields, and potentially other natural communities/habitat types yet to be identified.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive and represents observations made during multiple site visits by Raleigh PRCR staff. More wildlife species will likely be found within the Forestville Road Property, after additional ecological monitoring and biological sampling.

Common Name

Scientific Name

Native (Y/N)

Special Status*

Bird species

Plants and habitat at Forestville Road Property

American robin

Turdus migratorius

-----

American crow

Corvus brachyrhynchos

-----

brown-headed nuthatch

Sitta pusilla

-----

Carolina wren

Thryothorus ludovicianus

-----

chipping sparrow

Spizella passerina

-----

eastern towhee

Pipilo erythrophthalmus

-----

hairy woodpecker

Leuconotopicus villosus

-----

mourning dove

Zenaida macroura

-----

northern cardinal

Cardinalis cardinalis

-----

northern mockingbird

Mimus polyglottos

-----

red-bellied woodpecker

Melanerpes carolinus

-----

white-eyed vireo

Vireo griseus

-----

Mammal species eastern gray squirrel

Sciurus carolinensis

-----

coyote (scat)

Canis latrans

-----

white-tailed deer (prints & scat)

Odocoileus virginianus

-----

* Some wildlife species were unable to be identified to species, therefore it may be possible that other wildlife species associated with a special conservation status exist onsite.

* Some wildlife species were unable to be identified; therefore, it may be possible that other wildlife species associated with a special conservation status exist onsite.

21 21

Shrub/vine species

PDAP

Plant Species Observed

This list is not meant to be exhaustive and represents observations made during multiple site visits by Raleigh PRCR staff. More plant species will likely be found within the Forestville Road Property, after additional ecological monitoring and biological sampling.

Common Name

Scientific Name

Native (Y/N)

Special Status*

Virginia dayflower

Common Name wingstem

Commelina virginica

Scientific Name

Verbesina alternifolia

Native Y (Y/N)

-----

Special----Status*

English ivy

Forestville Property Hedera helix N

-----

greenbriers

Smilax spp.

-----

groundsel tree

Baccharis halimifolia

-----

Japanese honeysuckle

Lonicera japonica

-----

multiflora rose

Rosa multiflora

-----

privets

Ligustrum spp.

-----

resurrection fern

Pleopeltis polypodioides

-----

trumpet creeper

Campsis radicans

-----

wax myrtle

Myrica cerifera

-----

wild blueberries

Vaccinium spp.

-----

wild grapes

Vitis spp.

-----

wild olives

Elaeagnus spp.

Native N (Y/N)

-----

Special----Status*

Common Name wisteria

Shrub/vine species Grass species

Grass species

Scientific Name wisteria sp. Tree species Grass species

bluestem grasses

Andropogon spp.

-----

Englishgrasses ivy bluestem

Hedera helix Andropogon spp.

N Y

---------

Americangrasses beech bluestem

Fagus grandifolia Andropogon spp.

---------

crab grasses

Digitaria spp.

Y&N

-----

greenbriers crab grasses

Smilax spp. Digitaria spp.

YN Y&

---------

American sycamore crab grasses

Platanus occidentalis Digitaria spp.

YN Y&

---------

switch cane

Arundinaria tecta

-----

groundsel tree switch cane

Baccharis halimifolia Arundinaria tecta

---------

American holly switch cane

Ilex opaca Arundinaria tecta

---------

Japanese stiltgrass

Microstegium vimineum

-----

Japanese Japanesehoneysuckle stiltgrass

Lonicera japonica Microstegium vimineum

---------

black walnut Japanese stiltgrass

Juglans nigra Microstegium vimineum

Y N

---------

panic grasses

Panicum spp.

-----

multiflora rose panic grasses

Rosa multiflora Panicum spp.

N Y

---------

boxelder panic grasses

Acer negundo Panicum spp.

---------

rosette panic grasses

Dicanthelium spp.

-----

rosetteprivets panic grasses

Ligustrum spp. Dicanthelium spp.

N Y

---------

Callery pear rosette panic grasses

Pyrus calleryana Dicanthelium spp.

N Y

---------

rushes

Juncus spp.

-----*

resurrection rushes fern

Pleopeltis polypodioides Juncus spp.

---------*

eastern rushes hophornbeam

Ostrya virginiana Juncus spp.

---------*

sedges

Carex spp.

-----*

trumpet creeper sedges

Campsis Carexradicans spp.

---------*

eastern hornbeam sedges

Carpinus caroliniana Carex spp.

---------*

tall fescue grass

Festuca sp.

-----

myrtle tallwax fescue grass

Myrica cerifera Festuca sp.

Y N

---------

eastern red grass cedar tall fescue

Juniperus virginiana Festuca sp.

Y N

---------

wood oats

Chasmanthium spp.

-----

wild blueberries wood oats

Vaccinium spp. Chasmanthium spp.

---------

loblolly pine wood oats

Pinus taedaspp. Chasmanthium

---------

wild grapes

Vitisspecies spp. Forb

-----

mockernut hickory

-----

Elaeagnus spp. Aster spp. wisteria sp. Galium spp.

N Y N Y

---------* ---------

Carya Forbtomentosa species

northern red oak asters pignut hickory bedstraws red maple black snakeroot river birch bonesets shortleaf pine Christmas fern sourwood goldenrods southern hackberry ground ivy southern magnolia heartleaf southern red oak lizard’s tail sugar maple partridge berry sweetgum peas - legumes water oak peas - legumes white oak smartweeds yellow poplar spotted wintergreen

Quercus rubra Aster spp. Carya glabra Galium spp. Acer rubrum Actaea racemosa Betula nigra Eupatorium spp. Pinus echinata Polystichum acrostichoides Oxydendrum arboretum Solidago spp. Celtis laevigata Glechoma hederacea Magnolia grandiflora Hexastylis sp. Quercus falcata Saururus cernuus Acer saccharum Mitchella repens Liquidambar styraciflua Lespedeza spp. Quercus nigra Desmodium spp. Quercus alba Polygonum spp. Liriodendron tulipfera Chimaphila maculata

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y&N Y Y Y Y&N Y Y

---------* -------------------------* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forb species asters

Aster spp.

-----*

bedstraws

Galium spp.

-----

wild olives asters wisteria bedstraws

black snakeroot

Actaea racemosa

-----

black snakeroot

Treeracemosa species Actaea

-----

bonesets

Eupatorium spp.

-----*

American beech bonesets

Fagus grandifolia Eupatorium spp.

---------*

Christmas fern

Polystichum acrostichoides

-----

American sycamore Christmas fern

Platanus occidentalis Polystichum acrostichoides

-----

goldenrods

Solidago spp.

-----

American holly goldenrods

Ilex opaca Solidago spp.

-----

ground ivy

Glechoma hederacea

-----

black walnut ground ivy

Juglanshederacea nigra Glechoma

Y N

-----

heartleaf

Hexastylis sp.

-----

boxelder heartleaf

Acer negundo Hexastylis sp.

-----

lizard’s tail

Saururus cernuus

-----

Callery lizard’spear tail

Pyrus calleryana Saururus cernuus

N Y

-----

partridge berry

Mitchella repens

-----

eastern hophornbeam partridge berry

Ostrya virginiana Mitchella repens

-----

peas - legumes

Lespedeza spp.

Y&N

-----

eastern peas - hornbeam legumes

Carpinus caroliniana Lespedeza spp.

YN Y&

-----

peas - legumes

Desmodium spp.

-----

eastern red cedar peas - legumes

Juniperus virginiana Desmodium spp.

-----

smartweeds

Polygonum spp.

Y&N

-----

loblolly pine smartweeds

Pinus taeda Polygonum spp.

YN Y&

-----

spotted wintergreen

Chimaphila maculata

-----

mockernut hickory spotted wintergreen

Carya tomentosa Chimaphila maculata

-----

Virginia dayflower

Commelina virginica

-----

wingstem

Verbesina alternifolia

-----

* Some plant species were unable to be identified; therefore, it may be possible that other plant species associated with a special conservation status exist onsite.

* Some plant species were unable to be identified to species, therefore it may be possible that other plant species associated with a special conservation status exist onsite.

Shrub/vine species English ivy

Hedera helix

-----

greenbriers

Smilax spp.

-----

groundsel tree

Baccharis halimifolia

---------

22 22

PDAP

Forestville Property

NC Natural Heritage Program

NCNHDE-17228 February 21, 2022 Emma Liles City of Raleigh 222 W Hargett St Raleigh, NC 27602 RE: Forestville PDAP Dear Emma Liles: The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above. A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These results are presented in the attached ‘Documented Occurrences’ tables and map. The attached ‘Potential Occurrences’ table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one-mile radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report. If a Federally-listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one-mile radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here: https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37. Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission. Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or an occurrence of a Federally-listed species is documented near the project area.

Page 4 of 4

If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butler@ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603. Sincerely, NC Natural Heritage Program

23 23

PDAP

Forestville Property

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area Forestville PDAP February 21, 2022 NCNHDE-17228

No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the NCNHP database does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our database.

No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area* Managed Area Name City of Raleigh Open Space - Planned Neighborhood Park NPS-16

Owner City of Raleigh

Owner Type Local Government

NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally-listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.

Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on February 21, 2022; source: NCNHP, Q4, January 2022. Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.

Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area Forestville PDAP February 21, 2022 NCNHDE-17228 Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Group Observation Date Dragonfly or 32043 Coryphaeschna ingens Regal Darner 2004-Pre Damselfly

Element Accuracy Occurrence Rank H? 5-Very Low

Natural Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area Site Name Representational Rating Upper Neuse River Floodplain R2 (Very High) Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area Managed Area Name Owner City of Raleigh Open Space - Planned City of Raleigh Neighborhood Park NPS-16 City of Raleigh Easement City of Raleigh City of Raleigh Easement City of Raleigh NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund

Federal Status

State Status

---

Significantly Rare

Global State Rank Rank G5

S2?

Collective Rating C3 (High) Owner Type Local Government Local Government Local Government State State State

Page 3 of 4

24 24

PDAP

Forestville Property

Cultural Resource Inventory Historical Overview

Former Structures

The Forestville Road Property represents only a small portion of what was once an approximately 600-acre plantation, originally owned by Kearney Upchurch. He likely came into ownership of the lands containing the Forestville Road Property in the 1830s or 1840s, either by will from his father or by purchase. Before his death, Kearney passed control of the property to his son, James Upchurch, who subsequently passed the land to his son, William Ivan Upchurch. Following Ivan’s death in 1964, his landholdings were subdivided in 1966. Family history holds that the subject property, i.e., the Forestville Road Property, was conveyed to Hallie Upchurch Montague at this time. The City of Raleigh came into possession of the property in 2004.

Tennis Court: Family history holds that the tennis courts were a popular attraction for visitors to the Upchurch place in the early 1900s. The tennis courts were likely located in the southeastern corner of the property, just to the north of the paved driveway. Cotton Gin: A two-story frame building, with shiplap siding and a short ramp to the main entrance on one of the gable ends, allegedly housed a cotton gin. It is thought to have been located to the southeast of the Upchurch complex, east of the paved driveway.

Site Name The property was once part of the Kearney Upchurch plantation. A resident raised concern in April 2022 that the future park would be named in honor of the slaveholding family, and similar concerns have surfaced across the country regarding place names associated with racism and slavery. Therefore, it is recommended that community engagement be conducted when determining the future name of the site. It is also recommended that primary use as determined in Master Planning (i.e., recreational, greenway, educational, historical, etc.) informs site naming.

25 25

PDAP

Forestville Property

Existing Structures Western Edge of Property

Southwestern Corner of Property

Workshop: A red painted workshop building constructed around 1965 by Upchurch descendant, Joe Montague. The building has a small barn/shed roof addition on its south elevation and a storage room addition on its north elevation.

Log Cabin: Family history holds that the cabin was once a slave dwelling that stood elsewhere on the plantation. This is possible, as it is consistent with information that former enslaved person, Georgianna Foster, provided the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s. In an interview, Foster stated that “I wus born at Kerney Upchurch’s plantation twelve miles from Raleigh. He wus my marster an’ Missus Enny wus his wife. . . . We lived in little log houses at marsters.” Joe Montague relocated the cabin from the middle of the property in the 1950s. The mortar joining the stones of the chimney contains an inscription “04/19/70”, which likely refers to the date when chimney was completed after relocation.

Playhouse: A small building, used as a playhouse, is located in the former location of a work shed that was used for tobacco processing. According to Roger Montague, the work shed once had a cellar underneath where tobacco leaves were hung to soften before they were rolled. Stable: A small stable is located next to an abandoned pasture to the west-northwest of the log cabin. The stable is of frame construction and, according to Roger Montague, was not in existence in the 1950s or 1960s.

26 26

PDAP

Forestville Property

State Historic Preservation Office The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted during the pre-development site assessment, to ensure no significant cultural or archaeological sites have been identified onsite. The SHPO response is included to the right. The SHPO recommendations related to land-disturbing activities should be considered during any development planning processes. SHPO response: “There are no previously recorded archaeological sites located at the property submitted. However, portions of the property do contain areas of high potential for archaeological resources. For any ground disturbing activities planned in the project area in the future, please submit a description of the project to this office for review and comment. We may recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist prior to construction. We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.”

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator

Governor Roy Cooper

Secretary D. Reid Wilson

July 20, 2021 Emma Liles Park Planner City of Raleigh 222 West Hargett Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Re:

Emma.Liles@raleighnc.gov

Watkins Road property, Raleigh, Wake County, ER 21-1623

Dear Ms. Liles: Thank you for your submission concerning the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the materials provided and offer the following comments. There are no previously recorded archaeological sites located at the property submitted. However, portions of the property do contain areas of high potential for archaeological resources. For any ground disturbing activities are planned in the project area in the future, please submit a description of the project to this office for review and comment. We may recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist prior to construction. We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601

Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 814-6570/814-6898

27 27

PDAP

Forestville Property

Park Access

Park Access, Social Information Sheet Equity, and Demographic Analysis Park Access is a measure of how well different areas of the city are currently served by Raleigh’s system of parks and greenway trails. Each census block in the city is assigned a Park Access grade based on four factors:

MAP 13 PARK ACCESS ANALYSIS LEGEND Forestville Raleigh Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

1. Distance to Nearest Park: How far residents need to travel to reach the nearest public park;

Raleigh Parks Developed Parks Undeveloped Parks

2. Distance to Nearest Greenway Trail: How far residents need to travel to reach the nearest greenway trail;

Raleigh Greenways Greenway Trails Other Trails

3. Acres of Open Space: How many acres of park land are accessible nearby;

Level of Service A B

4. Park Experiences: The number and variety of park experiences available nearby;

C D

Communities with an “A” letter grade have very good park access relative to other areas of the city. These neighborhoods are likely located within a 10-minute walk of a park, have access to many acres of open space, and can enjoy a wide variety of park experiences within a short distance of home. Communities with a “D” or “F” letter grade have poor access to parks relative to other areas of the city. Residents in these areas may have to travel several miles to reach the nearest public park, and may only have access to a limited variety of park experiences.

LEGEND Park Access Grade

A B

Prioritizing investments in communities with low Park Access scores helps to promote Raleigh’s goal of providing every citizen with safe, convenient access to a park or greenway trail.

C D

0.2

0.4

Miles 0.8

F 0

4 Miles

28 28

PDAP

1. Unemployment: Population age 16 and over who are unemployed in the civilian labor force;

Equity

Information Sheet

Equity Priority can be determined by analyzing five key indicators of community health and well-being, as defined by Wake County Human Services’ Community Vulnerability Index:

Forestville Property

2. Low Educational Attainment: Population over age 25 who have less than a high school diploma;

MAP 14 EQUITY PRIORITY ANALYSIS

3. Age Dependency: Population under the age of 18 and over the age of 64 combined; 4. Housing Vacancy: The total number of vacant or unoccupied housing units in a block group; 5. Poverty Rate: The population living below the federal poverty threshold in Wake County;

1. Unemployment: Population age 16 and over who are unemployed in the civilian labor force;

LEGEND Forestville Raleigh Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Raleigh Parks Developed Parks

2. Low Educational Attainment: Population over age 25 who have less than a high school diploma;

3. Age Dependency: Population under the age of 18 and over the age of 64 combined; 4. Housing Vacancy: The total number of vacant or unoccupied housing units in a block group;

Undeveloped Parks Raleigh Greenways Greenway Trails

LEGEND Other Trails Equity Priority Equity PriorityLevels Levels

HighPriority Priority High

Prioritizing investments in these communities helps ensure that PRCR sites, facilities, and programs are more accessible to the communities that will benefit most from these public resources.

5. Poverty Rate: The population living below the federal poverty threshold in Wake County;

Low LowPriority Priority

Communities exhibiting a high concentration of these five demographic and socieconomic indicators are more likely to experience negative health outcomes such as heart disease, obesity, chronic stress, and depression−−outcomes which can be mitigated with better access to high-quality open spaces, outdoor recreation, and safe places to play and exercise. Prioritizing investments in these communities helps ensure that PRCR sites, facilities, and programs are more accessible to the communities that will benefit most from these public resources.

4 Miles

LEGEND Equity Priority Levels High Priority

Low Priority 0

0.2

0.4

Miles 0.8

4 Miles

29 29

PDAP

Forestville Property

10-Minute Walk Demographics

125

37.5

10 minutes

Median Household Income

Old

2021 Median Household Income (Esri)

Rd W at ki ns

Population by 5-year Age Increments

Population by Race & Ethnicity

W a tk

Forestville

i ns To w n

There are 125 people within a ten-minute walk from the Forestville Road Property. This population has a high median household income, less 20-35 year olds and more children under 14 and 45-65 year olds than the average distribution, and is a mostly white population. Within this population, 88% of people own their home as opposed to renting, 17% of households have at least one person with a disability, 7% of households are below the poverty level, and 6% speak limited to no English.

Hispanic Population Population of Two or More Races Other Race Population

Population

Median Age

Pacific Islander Population 10 minutes

$81,971

17%

Households with 1+ Persons with a Disability

% Population that Speaks Limited to No English

Asian Population American Indian Population

2.6 Average Household Size

Total Households

White Population 0%

Raleigh city

60%

Dots show comparison to Raleigh city

10 minutes

Places Raleigh city

121

404,692

125

Workday Drive

ffa

Households Below the Poverty Level

10 minutes

Places Raleigh city

193,330

2021 Owner Occupied Housing Units (Esri) (%)

88%

51%

2021 Renter Occupied Housing Units (Esri) (%)

13%

49%

Owner/Renter Occupied Housing Units Bu

Dominant Tapestry Segment Name

2021 Total Households Rd

476,639

130

520,228

r be

10%

2026 Total Population

2021 Total Population

Places $68,980

Projected Population Growth 2010 Total Population

Black Population

Dots show comparison to Raleigh city

Data Source: ESRI Community Analyst

30 30

PDAP

Forestville Property

5-Minute Drive Demographics

There are 15,404 people within a five-minute drive from the Forestville Road Property. This population has a high median household income, less 20-35 year olds and more children under 14 and 40-60 year olds than the average distribution, and is a mostly white population. Within this population, 87% of people own their home as opposed to renting, 16% of households have at least one person with a disability, 56% of households are below the poverty level, and 7% speak limited to no English.

Population by 5-year Age Increments

Forestville

Hispanic Population

2021 Median Household Income (Esri)

Population of Two or More Races Rolesville

Other Race Population

Median Age

Population

ill

Fa l

ta l

Median Household Income

35.5

Blv d

15,404

Population by Race & Ethnicity

5 minutes

$84,618

Pacific Islander Population

isb

American Indian Population

L ou

Places

New Hope Av e

60%

Dominant Tapestry Segment Name

Households Below the Poverty Level

ill

Dots show comparison to Raleigh city

ti c

Raleigh city

White Population

Bu ff a l o e

$68,980 Total Households

Up and Coming Families

tki

Average Household Size

5,305

Black Population

2.9

7% % Population that Speaks Limited to No English

Asian Population

Wake Crossroads

5 minutes

Neuse Crossroads

16% Households with 1+ Persons with a Disability

Places Raleigh city

11,735

404,692 New Be rn

2021 Total Population

15,404

476,639

540

17,316

520,228

Places Raleigh city

2021 Total Households

5,305

193,330

2021 Owner Occupied Housing Units (Esri) (%)

87%

51%

2021 Renter Occupied Housing Units (Esri) (%)

13%

49%

Wilders Grove Knightdale Av

I - 49

5 87

2026 Total Population

5 minutes

Owner/Renter Occupied Housing Units

2010 Total Population

5 minutes

Projected Population Growth

10%

Dots show comparison to Raleigh city

Data Source: ESRI Community Analyst

31 31

PDAP

Forestville Property

Suitability Analysis Site and Context Analysis of the Forestville Road Property yielded many results that should be considered when deciding where on the site is appropriate for development. The findings of this analysis are summarized below:

Beyond site suitability impacts, the PDAP summarizes other important information. When public engagement begins in conjunction with the start of the site development process, the project manager should keep the following in mind:

Suitability Overlay Diagram Existing Conditions

LEGEND Forestville

Existing Conditions/Historic Significance • Development around the historic structures should be very limited and only allow lowimpact development and historic interpretation.

Site Vicinity • The Forestville Road Property has a few nearby Community and Homeowner Associations, as well as some public schools. Efforts should be made to include these communities in the park planning process. Miles

0.03

0.05

0.1

Slope and Topography

LEGEND Forestville

Slope and Topography • The steep slopes should have very limited disturbance, so as not to cause erosion issues.

260

2' Contours Intermediate Index

Park and Greenway System Context • The Forestville Road Property should be planned within the larger context of the surrounding parks and greenways. When the site is developed, the experiences it provides should complement the existing park and greenway system in the area to help provide a broad range of activities for the community.

Terrain: Slope Map Flat (0°) Nearly level (1°) Gently level (2°) Gently sloping (3° - 5°) Strongly sloping (6° - 10°) Gently steep (11° - 15°) Moderately Steep (16° - 20°) Steep (21° - 30°) Very steep (31° - 90°)

290

310

230

220

240

280

310

260

320

Soils

0.03

0.05

Miles

330

0.1

280

Soils

LEGEND Forestville

• Development in areas of the site with poorly drained and partially-hydric soils should be limited because of the frequency of inundation. These soil types are not believed to be present onsite.

Soils Rg Water Wa WfB

W WaC

RgD

WfB

Zoning and Future Land Use • Any development of the Forestville Road Property should note that the area surrounding the site will continue to be zoned residential. Miles

Hydrology • Development along the creeks and stormwater channels on site should be limited, to provide riparian buffers.

0.03

0.05

0.1

RgC

RgC RgD

Hydrology

LEGEND Forestville USGS Blueline Streams Stormwater Channels Wetlands Palustrine- Emergent Palustrine- Forested/Shrub Palustrine- Other

Street Plan • Development along Oak Hill Drive should be limited, until any work needed to improve the road in accordance with the Raleigh Street Plan is complete.

Hydrology Areas Lake/Pond

Street Plan

Park Access, Equity, and Demographics • The area surrounding the property has D and F grades for park access. The development of this site should help improve these grades. • There is an area near the property with a lower equity score than the surrounding census blocks. Public engagement should target outreach in this area. • Public engagement should focus on outreach that recognizes the populations who speak limited English and the populations with disabilities.

LEGEND Raleigh Extra-territorial Jurisdiction Miles 0

0.03

0.05

0.1

Forestville

Raleigh Parks Developed Parks Undeveloped Parks

Street Typology Neighborhood Street Neighborhood Street Proposed Avenue 2-Lane, Undivided Avenue 2-Lane, Undivided Proposed Avenue 2-Lane, Divided Avenue 2-Lane, Divided Proposed Avenue 4-Lane, Divided Avenue 4-Lane, Divided Proposed Avenue 6-Lane, Divided Limited Access Highway Miles 0

0.25

0.5

32 32

PDAP

Forestville Property MAP ii RECOMMENDED SITE SUITABILITY

This park site was formerly part of a 600-acre plantation originally owned by the Upchurch family. Portions of the property contain areas of high potential for archaeological resources.

LEGEND Forestville

Limited Development Regular Development

0.03

0.05

Miles 0.1

Based on the analysis of the site suitability overlay, the following map delineates approximate areas of the site that are recommended to have very limited, limited, or regular development.

Very Limited Development

Limited Development

Regular Development

These areas have no significant or special imitations on development and are open to most design choices that will facilitate a versatile park property.

Site Suitability Analysis - Development Capacity Area Suitable for Very Limited Development

2.5 Acres

Area Suitable for Limited Development

3.5 Acres

Area Suitable for Regular Development

20 Acres

Total Park Area

26 Acres

33 33

PDAP

Forestville Property

Interim Management Recommendations This site’s unique historic nature entails a more complex level of interim management recommendations than usually found within a Pre-development Assessment Plan. This document breaks out the interim management recommendations for the Forestville Road Property into two categories, Cultural Resources and Natural Resources. The Cultural Resources recommendations can be found on page 34. These initial recommendations will be revised and supplemented with additional details at a later date. Pre-Development Assessment Plans are living documents, and interim management recommendations will be updated periodically as staff performs routine monitoring and further site research. More information on the Natural Resources recommendations can be found on page 35 including current management and recommended management for each short-term goal.

Long-term Goals 1. Continued collection of biological data, through ecological monitoring and mapping efforts. 2. Retention and protection of documented significant plant and animal species. 3. Improvement of wildlife habitat and natural plant communities, through appropriate natural resource management practices.

34 34

PDAP Implementation of additional monitoring and mapping efforts, to aid in the development of biological inventories, identify unauthorized access and use, and identify potential threats to the natural resources found onsite. Coordinated monitoring strategies can be used to address a variety of natural resource and land use concerns, including the documentation of rare plants and animals, the identification and control of invasive plant species, and the determination of the extent of unauthorized access and use occurring onsite. During planning site visits, PRCR staff observed evidence of unauthorized access to one of the small buildings that remains onsite. It appeared as if a person had been inhabiting the small building, based on the presence of blankets and other bedding material, clothes, and garbage/litter, which seemed to be recently discarded inside and around the small building. Additionally, family members of the former landowners are still permitted access to the property, in order to maintain the old cabin that exists on the tract, along with the access route to the aforementioned cabin. Current Management To date, there have been no formal biological surveys conducted at the Forestville Road Property, nor have any regular ecological monitoring protocols been established.

Forestville Property

Recommended Management Expansion of monitoring efforts and capabilities • PRCR staff will monitor for the presence of any significant/rare/protected plant and wildlife species, with the goal of performing annual site visits during different seasons. • PRCR staff should document the occurrence of invasive plant species found onsite, along with the approximate locations and levels of infestation, whenever possible. Maintaining invasive plant species records will help simplify information sharing and future planning efforts. • PRCR staff should engage with state and local government agencies for monitoring assistance. Agencies such as the NC Forest Service, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Natural Heritage Program, NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, NC Department of Environmental Quality, and others may be able to provide input and expertise that could help bolster monitoring efforts. • PRCR staff should contact the unauthorized user(s) that may be inhabiting one of the small buildings onsite and inform them that trespassing will not be tolerated. Staff should try to resolve the issue congenially, if possible, and offer information to the unauthorized user(s) related to housing assistance. • PRCR staff should contact the family members of the former landowner who have access to the tract and discuss City of Raleigh standards/requirements for vegetation management and other practices that the family members have been performing without oversight.

Current ArcGIS Online Database with Site Visit Data

35 35

PDAP

Evaluation and Control of Invasive Plant Species PRCR staff observed several invasive plant species during planning visits to the Forestville Road Property, with the most problematic areas concentrated near the property boundaries and as scattered clusters within the interior. Much of the tract exhibits little to no establishment of invasive plant species. Work should begin to reduce known populations of invasive plants near the property boundaries and the interior clusters, to prevent establishment into those areas currently free of invasive plants.

Forestville Property

Recommended Management Identification and prioritization of invasive species control • PRCR staff should identify and prioritize invasive species control efforts, based on the level of ecological threat posed by those species found on site. Resource allocation and the feasibility of control will need to be considered when developing plans for invasive species management.

The most prevalent invasive plants observed on the Forestville Road Property were privets (Ligustrum spp.) and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), which pose a serious threat to native plant and wildlife populations. Additional invasive plants species that were observed are included in the tables in the Natural Resources Inventory section. These lists of invasive plant species are not comprehensive and were compiled only after limited field observations. There are undoubtedly more invasive plants species currently occurring onsite. As previously mentioned, monitoring efforts focused on the documentation of invasive plant species will be used to inform the most effective and appropriate management strategies. PRCR should prioritize invasive species control efforts to address those species that pose the greatest ecological threats.

• Privet, stiltgrass, and wisteria were located along the property lines, with the eastern boundary representing the most highly impacted area. Privet, olive, and other invasive plants are also found in clusters throughout the tract and along the stream that bisects the property.

Current Management

• PRCR staff will use herbicides to control invasive plant species when necessary. All herbicide applications on PRCR properties should follow the City of Raleigh Pesticide Policy and be approved by appropriate PRCR staff.

No invasive plant species control efforts are currently being conducted onsite.

• The interior populations of invasive plants can be addressed first, as control efforts may require fewer resources as compared to the border areas with higher levels of infestation. The interior portions of the tract are also more likely to support significant/and or rare plants and wildlife, which provides further justification for increased prioritization.

• PRCR staff from the Natural Resources Section and from the Parks Division will work together closely to coordinate resources needed for invasive plant control.

Invasive Species Found On Site: Privets (Ligustrum spp.) and Japanese Stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum)

36 36

PDAP

Forestville Property

Evaluation of access points and access road conditions During planning site visits to the Forestville Road Property, concerns were raised regarding the current conditions of the property access point from Forestville Road, as well as the earthen access road that traverses the northern property boundary (Oak Hill Drive). Recommended Management • Sightlines for ingress/egress to the tract along Forestville Road should be improved for safety. • The parking area could be improved, to allow room for vehicles to turn around and pull forward onto Forestville Road when leaving, rather than backing out onto a highly-trafficked roadway and a potentially hazardous situation. • The access gate to the tract from Forestville Road does not currently have a City of Raleigh lock in place. PRCR staff should place an appropriate City of Raleigh lock on the gate as soon as possible, while ensuring continued authorized access for the relatives of the former landowner. • The access roadway along the northern property boundary (Oak Hill Drive) should be inspected by the proper City authorities, prior to increased vehicular traffic. Several areas were observed along the road where water has undercut the roadbed and shoulders, creating unstable surfaces with large cavities beneath. The roadbed appears to be most severely compromised around the point where the blue-line stream passes through a culvert below the road.

Entrance to site & Oak Hill Drive from Forestville Road

37 37

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix B: CAG Charter

COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP CHARTER:

Forestville Road Park

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Forestville Road Park Master Plan will provide a conceptual framework and vision for the future development and management of the approximately 25-acre property located at 4909 Forestville Road. Master Plans are planning documents that generally describe and guide the future management and development of a park property. They are created from a combination of input and expertise from the Design Team (Raleigh Parks staff), partner City of Raleigh staff (e.g., Transportation, Stormwater, Planning & Development, etc.), community members, and Community Advisory Group (CAG) members. For more information about the park planning process, view the Public Participation Policy for Park Planning.

PROJECT SCHEDULE The master planning process for Forestville Road Park is anticipated to be from Spring 2025 to early 2026. The draft project schedule is subject to change but is currently planned as follows: Phase Initial Input + Design Goals

Design Alternatives

Event CAG Meeting 1 – In-Person Public Workshop Online Survey CAG Meeting 2 – Virtual *Consensus Vote* CAG Site Visit - Optional CAG Meeting 3 – In-Person Public Workshop Online Survey CAG Meeting 4 - Virtual CAG Meeting 5 – In-Person Public Workshop

Draft Concept Plan + Priorities Online Survey Draft Master Plan Master Plan Adoption

CAG Meeting 6 – Virtual *Consensus Vote* CAG Meeting 7 – Virtual *Consensus Vote* CAG Meeting 8 + Celebration – In-Person *Consensus Vote* Parks Committee Meeting Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board Meeting City Council Meeting Page 1 of 7

Tentative Date April 2025 April 2025 April 2025 - May 2025 May 2025 May 2025 June 2025 July 2025 July 2025 July 2025 September 2025 September 2025 September 2025 October 2025 October 2025 November 2025 December 2025 January 2026 January 2026 February 2026

PURPOSE The purpose of the Community Advisory Group (CAG) is to provide recommendations to the Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board (PRGAB) for a park design that will best meet the needs of the community that the park is intended to serve. There are four major roles of the CAG: 1) Participate in a process of discovery, information sharing, and education. 2) Play a direct role in developing, reviewing, and discussing the overall vision and specific elements of the Master Plan for Forestville Road Park. 3) Work collaboratively to resolve issues and balance interests relative to the development of Forestville Road Park. 4) Inform the public about the topics and considerations being addressed in the planning process and communicate feedback received to the CAG and Design Team. At the end of the planning process, the CAG will report its recommendations to the PRGAB, along with the Master Plan Report. The PRGAB will then decide whether to forward the Master Plan Report, along with any specific considerations from the PRGAB, to City Council. The ultimate authority for adoption and implementation of the Master Plan rests with City Council.

Design Team The Design Team consists consist of professionals with specialized expertise in planning, design, engineering, landscape architecture, architecture and/or other related disciplines relevant to the project. Often, the Design Team consists of an engineering or design firm operating under a professional services contract with the City of Raleigh for the purpose of developing a project. For the Forestville Road Park master planning process, the Design Team will consist of Raleigh Parks staff. The Design Team works in collaboration with the CAG and partner City of Raleigh staff. The Design Team will be responsible for all meeting facilitation, design development, presentations to boards, commissions, and councils, and logistics for the project, including CAG meetings and public meetings.

FINAL PRODUCTS The Design Team will work with the CAG to develop five products over the course of the master planning process: (1) Design Goals, (2) Design Alternatives, (3) Draft Concept Plan, (4) Priorities for Phased Development, and (5) Master Plan Report. 1) Design Goals: A bulleted list describing the overall vision and focus for the park, including uses, sensitivity to natural elements, identity, history, and other characteristics, as appropriate. The Design Goals will be consistent with the site’s Pre-Development Assessment Plan and the Raleigh Parks Plan. The Design Goals will include reference to the ecological significance and functions of the site, the historic context of the area, the site’s relationship to the larger park system, and will be informed by feedback received from the general public during the Initial Input + Design Goals phase of the Master Plan process.

Page 2 of 7

2) Design Alternatives: Schematic renderings of potential site designs. Based on the Design Goals, the Design Team will collaborate with the CAG to develop diagrams representing at least two Design Alternatives. The Design Alternatives will be presented to the general public, City of Raleigh staff, and other relevant stakeholders for review, evaluation, and comment. 3) Draft Concept Plan: A conceptual plan rendering and written description of the potential site design. The CAG will select a preferred concept, taking into consideration feedback received during the Design Alternatives phase. The CAG’s preferred concept may consist of elements from one or more of the Design Alternatives. The Draft Concept Plan will also include recommendations for any historic interpretation and/or environmental stewardship considerations. 4) Priorities for Phased Development: An ordered list of site elements, in priority order. The CAG will identify priorities for the park, in anticipation of the possibility of phased development of the project, with consideration given to information on existing and anticipated funding. 5) Master Plan Report: A final report document, recording the project background, planning process, Design Goals, Design Alternatives, Draft Concept Plan, Priorities for Phased Development, and any other relevant material. The draft Master Plan Report will be made available for public review and comment. The Design Team will work with the CAG to address any comments received and will process this feedback to develop the final Master Plan Report. This Master Plan Report will be presented to the PRGAB for their consideration and recommendation to City Council.

MEETING PARTICIPATION In order to have the most efficient and effective planning process possible, CAG Members should be present, respectful, and responsible. Specific ground rules are outlined below: • • • • • • •

•

Honor the commitments of the CAG Charter. Treat each other, Raleigh Parks staff, organizations represented in the CAG, and the CAG itself with respect at all times. Prepare to work collaboratively to move the project forward in a timely manner. Adhere to meeting agendas and be prepared to start on time. Monitor participation – everyone should participate, but none should dominate. Express any disagreement or concern openly with other CAG Members, while refraining from hostility and antagonism. Share information discussed throughout the planning process with the organizations and constituents represented, and bring back the opinions of the constituencies to the CAG, as appropriate. Support and actively engage in the CAG decision processes.

Page 3 of 7

Public Comment The CAG is intended to be representative of the public through the CAG members' own organizations or affiliations, as well as through their work with other groups. All CAG meetings are open to observation by the public. A public comment period will occur at the beginning of each CAG meeting. Members of the public who attend CAG meetings will be asked to abide by the following ground rules: 1) Only one person will be allowed to speak at a time, and no one will interrupt when another person is speaking. 2) No personal attacks or issue statements blaming others for specific actions or outcomes. 3) In order to allow everyone a fair chance to speak and to contribute, a time limit of 3-5 minutes per speaker will be enforced.

CAG REPRESENTATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES Representation The CAG will be representative of persons with interests in the park. Demographics of the area around the park, including age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, and educational background, as well as professional/personal experience and other relevant qualifications related to the characteristics of the park will help determine representation of the CAG. Certain stakeholder groups may be represented by a CAG Member, but the community engagement process will strive to include all interested parties. CAG Members will be expected to represent the interests of: •

Themselves, and o Any organization(s) that have authorized the CAG Member to represent them. o Any group(s) of constituents from a similar interest group or community (such as nearby HOAs/neighborhoods or other organizations with a similar mission).

Responsibilities Deliberating in Good Faith • • •

The primary responsibility of CAG Members is to balance all interests and participate collaboratively in the development of the Master Plan. CAG Members will endeavor to develop a consensus-based Master Plan that is satisfactory to all relevant parties. CAG Members will ensure an integrated approach is taken in drafting the Master Plan, by meeting together as needed to assure strong communication and collaboration between all relevant parties.

Representing Constituents • •

CAG Members will share information with constituents and share their constituents’ interests with other CAG Members and the Design Team. In developing the Master Plan, CAG Members will consider the interests of all community members, as well as their own particular interest group, when reviewing issues and recommendations.

Page 4 of 7

•

CAG Members will invite proposals from their constituents to present to the CAG and Design Team and will provide proposals from the CAG to their constituents for feedback and input.

Attending Meetings •

•

• •

Each CAG Member is expected to attend and fully participate in all CAG meetings. o Approximately 50% of meetings will be in-person and 50% of the meetings will be held virtually. Hybrid meeting formats are not available. Attendance of at least 75% of CAG Meetings is mandatory. Attendance will be evaluated at two points: after the Design Alternatives phase of the planning process and prior to the final CAG meeting (Master Plan Report & Recommendation to PRGAB vote). If a CAG Member has an attendance rate lower than 75% at either point, they may be removed from the CAG. It is imperative that CAG Members make every effort to attend meetings in which a consensus vote will occur, to ensure that all perspectives are captured and that the planning process can proceed efficiently. A quorum of greater than 50% of CAG Members (excluding PRGAB and HRMAB representative members) shall be required for consensus votes. CAG Members shall read appropriate materials and arrive prepared to work. o Meeting materials and agendas will be provided in advance of meetings. In the event that a CAG Member is unable to attend a meeting, then the CAG member may submit any comments or discussion points beforehand to the Design Team.

Withdrawal, Removal, and Replacement Appointments Withdrawal and Removal • •

•

If a CAG Member can no longer fully participate in the process, they may withdraw from the CAG by notifying Raleigh Parks Staff in writing. CAG Members may be removed by the Parks Committee of the PRGAB in the following scenarios: o If a CAG Member has an attendance rate of less than 75% after the Design Alternatives phase of the planning process. o If multiple or severe violations of the ground rules for meeting participation occur. CAG members will be notified of removal via their preferred contact method (email or phone call) by a member of the Design Team.

Replacement Appointments • •

In the event that a CAG Member withdraws or is removed, the Parks Committee will determine if their interests can be represented by the remaining CAG Members. If not, the Parks Committee may suggest and appoint a replacement from a similar organization, interest group, or neighborhood from the initial pool of applicants for the CAG.

CONSENSUS-BASED DECISION PROCESS The CAG will operate by consensus of all members of the CAG. Consensus is a decision rule that allows collaborative problem solving to work, by preventing domination by the majority, allowing building of trust, and sharing of information, especially under conditions of conflict. Consensus does not mean that

Page 5 of 7

everyone will be equally happy with the decision, but rather that there is general agreement and support that the best decisions or recommendations that can be made at the time have been made. Consensus requires sharing information, which leads to mutual education, providing the basis for crafting workable and acceptable alternatives. Consensus promotes joint thinking of a diverse group and leads to creative solutions. Moreover, because parties participate openly in the deliberation, they understand the reasoning behind the recommendations and are willing to support them. The focus for each CAG Member should be on making good decisions for their constituency, not simply to reach agreement. During the planning process for Forestville Road Park, consensus votes will be conducted at four milestones: • • • •

Design Goals Draft Concept Plan Priorities for Phased Development Master Plan Report & Recommendation to PRGAB

In making decisions on the above items, each CAG Member will vote on the specific proposal using a five‐ point scale. The scale allows CAG Members to clearly communicate their intentions, assess the degree of agreement that exists for a particular proposal, and register their dissatisfaction without holding up the rest of the CAG process. The five‐point scale is as follows: Endorsement – Member fully supports the item. Endorsement with minor point of contention – Member likes the item. Agreement with minor reservations – Member can live with the item. Stand aside with major reservations – Member has a formal disagreement but will not block or hold up the item. 5. Block – Member will not support the item. 1. 2. 3. 4.

The Design Team will measure the CAG’s consensus on a given proposal by open polling of all CAG members. The levels of consensus are: • • •

Consensus ‐ All CAG Members rate the item as a 1, 2 or 3. Consensus with Major Reservations – At least one CAG Member rates the item as a 4. No Consensus ‐ At least one CAG Member rates the item as a 5.

The Master Plan Report will document the level at which CAG Members supported each proposal. All points of contention, minor reservations, major reservations, and blocks will be included. The consensus votes will be considered by the PRGAB and City Council in their review of the Master Plan.

Page 6 of 7

By signing below, I hereby acknowledge that I have completely read, fully understand, and agree to the policies and procedures outlined within the Community Advisory Group Charter.

________________________________________________ Name

________________________________________________ Signature

________________________________________________ Date

Page 7 of 7

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix C: CAG Biographies

Community Advisory Group Biographies Andrew Stephenson • Andrew grew up in Niagra Falls and moved to Raleigh in 2010. He has lived in Northeast Raleigh since 2016 and has been incredibly excited abou the development in the Buffaloe Road corridor. Since having his �irst child in 2018, he has become a huge supporter of the Raleigh Parks system, visiting just about every park in the city, as well as the greenway system. His oldest has been participating in city park summer camps and special events for years, and now with a newborn, he's excited to take her to do it all again. Andrew is a bit of a "civics nerd" as a hobby and has been tracking development, from site plans to permit applications, for every new development that has come to the corridor, and then spreading the information within his community. The Forestville Road property was on his radar since 2016, and he was ecstatic when he heard about the seed money provided by the upcoming Townes at Milburnie Ridge development. Andrew is excited to be a part of the process of planning the park out!

Bob Edgerton - Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board Representative • Bob grew up in Cary, NC and graduated with a BS from NC State University. He also has a Masters Degree in Management from The University of South California and is a PhD-ABD in Urban Studies from Old Dominion University. He served in the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force for more than 30 years as an aviator and Joint Service Staff Officer, which included assignments to the Japanese Joint Staff Council in Tokyo, Japan and the United States Department of State in Washington, DC. He has been on the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board for two and a half years. His volunteer service also includes membership with the Dorothea Dix Community Committee and over six years as Chair of the Southwest Community Engagement Forum (formerly SWCAC).

Brian D. Ellis • Brian has lived in Northeast Raleigh for over 7 years and is incredibly excited to be part of the Forestville Road Park Community Advisory Group. He works in technology and program management and enjoys working across different perspectives to get things done. He's a �irm believer that diversity of thought will always provide the best possible outcomes. Parks have always been an important part of his life. Some of his favorite memories are from spending time at parks as a kid, and now he's continuing that tradition with his own family. He believes parks are more than just green space - they're places for connection, creativity, therapy, and joy. He's looking forward to helping create a space that re�lects what the community needs now, as well as in the future for years to come.

Diya Patel - Raleigh Youth Council Representative

Iain Burnett - Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board Representative • Iain is a recent addition to the Parks Board, and he joined to give back to the City and help support the greenway and parks system that his family appreciates so much. He is a graduate student at UNC and previously worked as a project engineer. Page 1 of 3

Jenny Harper - Historic Resources and Museum Advisory Board Representative • Jenny is a historic preservation consultant who has called Raleigh home for nearly 25 years. Deeply committed to safeguarding the City's rich heritage, she has previously served on numerous boards and advisory groups related to the preservation of historic, architectural, and cultural assets. Bringing a passion for place, history, and thoughtful development, Jenny currently serves as Vice Chair of the City of Raleigh's Historic Resources and Museum Advisory Board, the Dix Park Community Committee, and Preservation Raleigh, a non-pro�it preservation advocacy organization established in 2023. She is especially excited about the opportunity to bring an invaluable and much-needed recreational amenity to the community - one that not only enhances quality of life, but also tells a compelling story about the area's early development. Kevin Lewis • Kevin and his family live in Northeast Raleigh and love exploring the city's parks. He works in land use planning and is excited to be part of this project!

Kim Davis • Kim moved to Raleigh in April 2022, in search of the green spaces, trees, and great outdoor activities that Raleigh offers. Kim is an education attorney and represents school boards and charter schools. She lives in a neighborhood adjacent to the proposed Forestville Road Park site and is looking forward to working with the CAG to shape the park into a great spot for the community that connects all the new businesses and neighborhoods being built in the area.

Lauren Neville Smith • Lauren joins the CAG as a local resident, living minutes from the park, with a heavy interest in her local community. She has a drive to put roots down in the northeastern part of Raleigh and knows being involved in community planning is the best way to do that! Lauren loves walking her dog in many parks and has played sports throughout her life in parks and recreation programs. She is excited to be a part of the Forestville Park Community Advisory Group and looks forward to creating a space that will tailor to this growing community!

Leah Weaver • Leah grew up in Concord and moved to Raleigh to attend NC State, where she received a degree in Civil Engineering. Now a lead transportation planner, she is passionate about helping communities design sustainable and accessible transportation for the future. Raleigh's parks hold a special place in Leah's heart - she and her husband got engaged in Jaycee Park, a favorite date night spot they frequented with their two dogs. After welcoming their son last year, Leah was excited at the opportunity to join the CAG and contribute to shaping a local park where her family and others can create lasting memories.

Maria Fadri • Maria is a scientist and former professor of biology and biochemistry at the university and college levels. Inside the lab, she works in regenerative medicine, and outside the lab, she enjoys hiking, gardening, dog agility, and fostering for local animal rescues. In her community, she runs her neighborhood Little Library and was part of the team that created the Wake Tech Outdoor Page 2 of 3

Life Sciences Learning Laboratory and Pollinator Garden. Maria is interested in promoting literacy, conservation, biodiversity, and community-focused small businesses.

Mikayla Posey • Mikayla is a North Carolina native, proud mom to an 8-year-old, and a full-time project manager in the construction industry. She and her �iancé recently purchased their �irst home, just a short walk from the planned park site, where they are raising their blended family, including their dog, Bloom. Mikayla studied Sustainable Technology at Appalachian State University and began her career in the utility-scale solar industry. She is passionate about sustainability, community, and creating spaces where families can thrive. As a member of the Community Advisory Group, she's excited to help shape a park that future generations, including her own, can enjoy. Roger Montague • Roger grew up on the future park property when it was a working farm. He hopes the park is a place that people can visit and leave having had a very positive and relaxing experience. He is very interested in ensuring the natural and cultural resources on the property are protected and preserved for generations to come.

Sarah Jackson • Sarah is a mother, educator, and artist. She is deeply invested in weaving connections within her community. She hopes to contribute vibrant energy and devotion to equity to this Community Advisory Group, and she looks forward to advocating for everyone who will be impacted by the development of the park, including the watershed, the soil, the plant & animal life, and the humans.

Sharmaine F. Walker • Sharmaine is a Raleigh transplant who has enjoyed living in Northeast Raleigh for over 27 years. She is an avid walker, a retired educator, and she loves to spend her spare time outdoors enjoying nature. Along with family, friends, and acquaintances, Sharmaine has spent many hours actively supporting many Raleigh Parks activities and events, year around. She is thankful to join the CAG in support of her community. It is her hope that we create a city park of pleasing design, useful space, and that is, of course, welcoming to all. Taylar Flythe • Taylar was raised here in Raleigh and is excited to a part of this project, making a lasting impact on this rapidly growing area! She is a former Wake County public school educator and administrator and currently works for a nonpro�it that aims to provide real-time support and opportunities for at-risk students and their families.

Page 3 of 3

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix D: CAG Meeting Minutes & Presentations

Meeting Notes

Forestville Road Park Community Advisory Group – Meeting #1 April 23, 2025 Marsh Creek Community Center 1. Icebreaker Activity 2. Introductions 3. Presentation a. Park Planning 101 b. Project Overview c. Site Overview i. Area Context ii. Natural Resources iii. Site History d. Questions & Comments: i. Was the $600,000 from multiple developers? 1. No, that money is from one developer - Townes at Milburnie Ridge (7640 Oak Hill Drive). ii. Is any of the property classiﬁed as a wetland? 1. No. There is a 50’ Neuse River Buffer (required riparian buffer) along the main N-S stream though. iii. How many acres are developable? 1. Approximately 13 acres are suitable for development (have reasonably ﬂat slopes, etc.) iv. Why did the 1800s census include enslaved people? 1. They were included as “property” in separate slave schedules. v. From Bob Edgerton – First Upchurch in NC was a Michael Upchurch, an indentured servant who came over in 1652, and all Upchurches in the Triangle area are descendent from this man. There is an office in Cary that tracks all that genealogy (Upchurch & Allied Families Genealogy Project) 4. Design Goals a. Brainstorming Activity b. Discussion Notes: i. Natural – Keep the ‘forest’ part of Forestville 1. Education 2. Encourage volunteers & stewardship 3. Gardens 4. Use the resources existing on site 5. Shade --"Since moving to the south, i LOVE love love the shade... and there are so many walkers in my neighborhood, a nice shaded walking trail would be amazing." 6. Lots of interest in preservation! a. Tree canopy and the creek especially b. Creek is very unique to the site 7. Green Stormwater Infrastructure 8. Agriculture

Meeting Notes a. Edible landscaping: "The Pecan trees on site - can we build on that to have [a food forest]" 9. Preservation—"People move out here because they want space"... "As this area changes and a lot of that open space goes away, this site is going to become even more precious"... "We are losing so many trees in this area along Forestville… hopefully this can be the antithesis of that, the one place that saves it" a. Prioritize protecting largest, oldest trees 10. Stream a. The stream is a feature that can’t be found very many places… We need to manage the stormwater that is coming through from adjacent development… Can we think about potentially installing GSI or a wetland type of space that would slow down the flow of water coming onto the site… provide an educational opportunity while protecting that stream… Would we need to look into protecting the source of that stream? That is off this property. We need to think about setting up an agreement that might be able to protect it. ii. Play 1. Nature play opportunities out in the woods! 2. Nature Education a. Outdoor learning (the feature and the meeting space) 3. Schools on both sides of the site & lots of home-schooling in the area as well 4. "We already have lots of developed recreational space, we have those courts and fields nearby at Buffaloe Road and at the Soccer Complex" iii. Community - Gathering / meeting place 1. Debate re: building/center: a. Yes, there is need – no parks offer this nearby! b. No, HOAs offer this in the area c. Potential Compromise - Large covered picnic shelter? Something more like Knightdale Station 2. Walkable a. Trails & connectivity 3. Sports Courts? a. Generally no, they already are served in this way in this area b. Potential interest in: i. Sand Volleyball ii. Tennis or Pickleball iii. Disc Golf c. Caveat: As long as we preserve the large historic pecan trees! iv. Historic Interpretation 1. Art – medium for storytelling a. Mural on sidewalk or restroom or history trail 2. “Time Capsule” 3. Recognize but not celebrate this history

Meeting Notes 4. Rebuilding & adding to the history of the site (“future history”), get everyone in the area to sign bricks 5. Museum / art gallery in the historic cabin? a. Referenced Horseshoe Farms farmhouse conversion 6. Share Roger’s photographs & maybe record his oral histories a. QR code option? 5. Next Steps a. Upcoming Meetings Schedule b. Input Request: i. CAG Meeting locations – Marsh Creek Community Center works for group ii. CAG ﬁeld trip/site visit to park site – weekday evening preferred

Agenda

Forestville Road Park Community Advisory Group – Meeting #2 May 20, 2025 Virtual – Microsoft Teams Attendance: 1. Lauryn Kabrich

10. Andrew Stephenson

3. Emma Liles

12. Kim Davis

2. TJ McCourt

4. Shawsheen Baker

13. Sarah Jackson

6. Iain Burnett

15. Taylar Flythe

5. Kimberly Siran

7. Bob Edergotn 8. Kim Davis

Agenda

11. Kevin Lewis

9. Lauren Neville

14. Sharmaine Walker

16. Leah Weaver

17. Maria Fadri

18. Mikayla

1. General Reminders a. CAG Google Drive Walkthrough:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Wzlg1FpfXFFgop4JnuP7XoZKlNblbtA?usp=drive_link i. CAG Charter ii. Design Ideas & Inspiration – take pictures of parks you like! Find a cool article? Upload it! This shares with Raleigh staff and the full CAG iii. Historic Research & Information – if y’all dig anything up, drop it in here. Currently there is the archaelogical survey and Roger’s Log Cabin report! iv. Meeting Minutes – each meeting will have a subfolder with minutes & copies of any handouts v. Presentations – presentations from each meeting vi. Contact info – includes contact information for the whole CAG b. One more reminder – updated exhibit with acreage of developable land – 13 acres total (no steep slopes, outside riparian buffers, etc.)

2. Community Debrief

a. What has everyone been hearing & learning from their neighborhoods?

Agenda i. Keep as many trees as possible! 1. People are nervous the park will clearcut the same way nearby development has ii. Canopy Walk iii. Protect & feature the creek iv. Request for dog park v. Support for pickleball courts – also came up during in-person event vi. Complaints about not being chosen for CAG vii. Everyone’s biggest concerns is connections to the park! viii. Walkable access is a huge request ix. HOA member/ police officer - strongly doesn’t support basketball courts x. Parks Board – MP is important time to decide how much parking will be allocated 1. This will be a main design point we explore during design alternatives

b. What outreach methods seem most effective? i. People are seeing the yard signs! But don’t understand the public nature of the process? ii. Word of mouth engagement works well in this area

3. Community Engagement Results & Recap a. May 5th Public Meeting

i. Three different kids came up with the idea for a zipline in their drawings!

ii. Immediate neighbors came to public meeting – as seen in ‘travel to park’ question

iii. Schools might want to come to the park, think about bus parking

b. Online Survey

i. Participants online said they would be driving ii. Lots of people attending Knightdale parks 1. Knightdale & Buffaloe both have ballfields, so there isn’t a need & we don’t need to provide that amenity at Forestville Road park iii. Everyone loves walking trails, play (nature & traditional), restrooms, picnic shelters, sport courts 1. Intergenerational play, walkable features iv. Stream access for play & exploration; cool off in the summer! 4. Design Goals a. Review drafted goals i. Honor History ii. Foster Community iii. Conserve Nature iv. Inspire Play b. Discussion

Agenda i. Pulse check? Does this seem like what we’ve talked about? What are we missing? 1. Nailed it! 2. Spot on! 3. I think it’s perfect ii. Honor History: 1. Doesn’t’ say African-American during honor history 2. Could use more details about the Indigenous people 3. How about we don’t wordsmith it too much and just confirm that we’ll be looking equitably at telling lesser known histories when we interprete the site? 4. I agree with Bob having a beginning and more authentic, and interesting timeline of plantation and local area iii. Foster Community 1. Can we include something about bringing people together of different background and experiences? iv. Conserve Nature 1. this is my favorite goal 2. Add biodiversity & native plants into the conserve nature section 3. Love enhancing, highlighting, but want to see something about protection and information about what we will put in to the site 4. Roger has shared a lot of info about the stream and they’d like to see something specific in the goal 5. Can we conserve/preserve for future generations? 6. Do we need to include a percentage of trees to maintain? a. Think that is hard to nail down at this phase 7. Maybe let’s mention the rock outcrop sensitive habitats – we say we will protect that v. Inspire Play 1. Playground icon is limiting – can we include sports in that image 2. If we can separate play spaces and natural surroundings, to allow the design to proceed with different themes (a play area, and a natural area, for example). Not to preclude a play space in nature, but to not require it 3. After thinking over the "inspire play" goal a bit more, I wanted to throw out "curious" and "cooperative" as additional adjectives to modify the word "play", to help tie conservation, history, and sports into the theme? 5. Consensus Vote – Design Goals a. Process Overview + Explainer 6. Next Steps a. Site Visit i. Is it possible to have two options to visit the site?

Agenda

b. Q&A

1. Not at this time, but we can schedule another visit with Roger or the whole team later in the process

Agenda

Forestville Road Park Community Advisory Group – Meeting #3 Attendees: Sarah Jackson; Roger Montague; Kim Davis; Iain Burnett Kim Davis; Leah Weaver; Andrew Stephenson; Jenny Harper; Bob Edgerton; Sharmaine Walker; Brian Ellis; Maria Fadri Unavailable: Diya Patel; Gabrielle McLoughlin; Kevin Lewis; Lauren Neville; Mikayla Posey; Taylar Flythe

June 24, 2025 Marsh Creek Community Center

Meeting Notes 1. General Reminders (5:10-5:23pm)  Final Design Goals: 1) Honor History, 2) Foster Community, 3) Conserve Nature, 4) Inspire Play – “Rooted in history and built for community”  No discussion  Share-out from June 3rd Site Visit  Walking it felt a lot bigger than it seems on paper  The shape of the land itself is an incredible feature of the park  The erosion on the stream was a lot deeper than it seemed in the pictures  If you were 10 years old you could back up and jump the creek anywhere…  Big beautiful trees out there – tree canopy is wonderful; unique natural area that might be hard to find again  Big hill with the granite boulder outcropping was a unique and beautiful area

2. Stormwater Management Presentation a. Presenters: (5:23-5:40)  Kendall Kausler – Senior Stormwater Plans Reviewer & GSI Advocate  Sally Hoyt – Stormwater Review Supervisor & GSI Advocate • Update from Sally that the GSI inspectors went back out to review Solis developer’s mitigation approach and have approved revisions to their stormwater notice of violation – they are now compliant. o Bob asked a question about catching trash runoff and litter from housing development stormwater systems into the stream b. Q&A: (5:40-5:54)  Roger notes that Raleigh Stormwater is in a tough spot working to protect the environment while heavy development takes place across the city; the stream will be at the mercy of the 5-6 stormwater control measures upstream and is

Agenda



 

likely to suffer  as more stormwater structures divert water towards the stream, erosion is going to intensify. While the Solis developers may now be up to regulation, he is concerned that delivering water to the hillside not near the stream will create ongoing issues & the emergency spillway being directed toward the fence and cabin on the park site is likely to create some preservation concerns. • Sally confirms that Solis’ stormwater control measure design meets code. Since this development was submitted (3-4 years ago), the City of Raleigh has updated their stormwater code to differently regulate stormwater outfall locations/water offloaded onto adjacent properties. Roger is correct in observing that there are still unintended consequences to these developments. He agrees with the City’s recommendation that Solis not pipe their stormwater outfall all the way down to the stream. Iain asked if there is hope or intent to use city property to mitigate runoff from private developers, like the Wetland Conversion occurring at Durant Nature Preserve. Sally notes that it is typically the responsibility of the downstream property owner to mitigate & convey the water from runoff from upstream development. Kendall notes that the project will be subject to a flood study and since the site of the park does not have FEMA regulated floodplain there are likely numerous avenues for mitigating runoff in the park development plans, including stream restoration. However, Sally notes there are always tradeoffs as we design mitigation approachs or do stream restoration, such as loss of trees or other habitat. Raleigh Stormwater reassured that they advise the parks department in the design process. Sarah asks if we know what to expect about the runoff from the other developer (The Townes at Milburne). Lauryn updated the status of development with the other group and their amenability to working with us on GSI.

3. Design Alternatives (5:57 – 6:10)  Roger asked if the private property owners (4925 Forestville Road) have been approached about selling – Lauryn confirmed that they have not yet been contacted, but this is being considered by the City’s Real Estate Office. a. Review Design Alternative A  Will paved trail be asphalt? Likely, yes. b. Review Design Alternative B  Would cars leaving from Oak Hill Drive be able to turn left onto Forestville Road? Yes - likely a 4 way intersection, possibly with a traffic light.  “Deer salad” (Pollinator meadow)

Agenda c. Review Design Alternative C  Confirmed loop trail would be for pedestrians (walking, running, biking, strollers, etc.)  Would pedestrian access be 24/7 by neighborhoods? Raleigh Parks are open dawn to dusk; they do not typically have gates or other security measures to keep foot traffic out at night.  Discussion of what it would be like to have an unstaffed neighborhood center building – typically available for rentals, intermittent programming, etc. Examples: Eastgate Park, Brentwood Park d. Discussion (6:10-6:17; 6:17-6:24, 6:24-6:33) & Charette (group discussion 6:34-7:04) Initial Questions/Overall Comments  Will the sport courts be covered at all? o They could be – that would be decided as design advanced  What’s the difference between nature play area vs traditional play area? o Traditional Play: “Typical” playground with equipment like swings, slides, and climbing structures, often made of plastic or metal. o Nature Play: "a designated, managed area in an existing or modified outdoor environment where children of all ages and abilities play and learn by engaging with and manipulating diverse natural elements, materials, organisms, and habitats, through sensory, fine motor and gross motor experiences.” (e.g., log balance beams, boulders, lean-tos, sticks, pinecones, etc.)  https://www.eenorthcarolina.org/resources/supplementalresources/nature-play-and-learning-places o Adventure Play: Play area that includes physical challenges, such as climbing and balancing (e.g., ziplines, canopy walk)  Does a nature play area have fencing or boundaries? o Any type of play area can have fencing boundaries or not – would be decided as design advanced  Volleyball vs Pickleball  Types of play  What would be developed in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is not clear on the map for Design Option C o As the construction budget is not predetermined for this project, we may or may not have phased development – so, don’t necessarily need to think about phases at this time  What are the risk factors for moving the cabin?  Bigger label or footprint for the cabin  Potential for a greenway connection at the north of the stream – is that related to the culvert for a connection under the street?

Agenda



o Yes, this potential future trail connection will be labeled more clearly for the upcoming public engagement Are there cost guestimates for design options A, B, or C? o There is no current set budget we are operating under – once one design coalesces, a cost estimate will be developed to inform future capital budget for the park’s development Can we better indicate that the paved asphalt path is used for multiple pedestrian uses (no cars, are bikes allowed etc?) o We would likely not do centerline striping of this trail; that is only really necessary on busy/high traffic segments of the greenway network Can we include site visit photos in the public input survey to show natural features of certain sections or areas of the map? So that people can better envision what the landscape actually looks like and imagine the features Can we label the sports court section more generally rather than as “pickleball” court?

Alternative A  Having another entry from Oak Hill Drive on the east side of the stream  Have nature play area on east side only  Favorite part is that half of the park is virtually untouched, which is nice because it will be the only untouched place, esp. after all the housing developments are complete around it; if you do move something back there, a nature play area makes the most sense  Love this one because it wasn’t over programmed – such a lovely site in and of itself, the site speaks for itself, the others try to fit too much of everyone’s ideas in; did also like the adventure play on the east side if more development  Keeping the nature trails by the streams for kids; add more unpaved trails for dog walkers, etc. – add length to the trails with zig zags, etc.  GSI water features on the southern border is lovely and paying close attention to that in the first plan is great  Swapping out some of the paved paths for more unpaved paths on the back side of the property; especially for trail runners and others who like the natural trails for dog walking, etc.  Can we have play on the east side without a second parking lot? Just a much smaller lot if anything? Also, would need a restroom if there are play areas on the east side.  At least a 2nd entry point on the east side if no development (play area) on the back side Alternative B  Love the pollinator meadow

Agenda      

Picnic grove and play area together under the pecan tree grove may be difficult together Some concern about pecan trees dropping pecans everywhere may not go well in a kids play area – having play area under picnic grove may not go well together There should be no option without a play area What is a nature play area?? (common question) If you moved cabin to pecan grove, can we still have a picnic area up there and move the nature play area down to the original cabin area? Picnic area and cabin together would still leave the east side more untouched…

Alternative C  Several CAG members disliked the east side development  Greater demand for restrooms and facilities if development on the east side  Move sport court back to the west and have play area on the east side  Second parking lot in SW should be removed  Move west side of trail loop east a bit then have sports court back on the west side with garden/food forest area on the east side where there’s a lighter development touch  Noise pollution concern from sports courts? Particularly with pickleball  Having sports courts near play area is helpful for families so that they’re near their kids while also exercising  Area south of the path along the stream is undeveloped/underutilized - can we put a constructed wetland (or stream restoration) in there for educational purposes and to protect the stream from the ravages of stormwater runoff from the developments adjacent? • Sally noted that we likely would not be able to get a constructed wetland permitted in that area because of disruption to the existing stream. Shawsheen notes they also generally require a lot of tree removal.  Is there any desire for kids mountain biking? • Scored unusually low in first survey  NE corner is highly desirable but the terrain is too steep for a pickleball court… finding a different spot may work better. Development in this area would likely assume a retaining wall and would be more difficult/expensive  This plan is super invasive to the back part of the property and divies up all the natural areas into little pockets – fragments habitat  We can send out some examples of unstaffed neighborhood centers for CAG to get a better sense of what the use could be – little bit bigger than Hill Street Neighborhood Center in current design option C.

Agenda 

Neighborhood center for fitness classes would be nice and more options for gatherings to reduce need for picnic spaces.

4. Next Steps 

Public Meeting 2 & Design Alternatives Online Survey

Agenda

Forestville Road Park Community Advisory Group – Meeting #4 August 6, 2025 Virtual – Microsoft Teams Attendees Raleigh Parks: Lauryn Kabrich, Bekah Torcasso Sanchez, TJ McCourt, Shawsheen Baker, Emma Liles, Kimberly Siran, CAG: Bob Edgerton, Iain Burnett, Brian Ellis, Jenny Harper, Kim Davis, Lauren Smith, Mikayla Posey, Roger Montague, Sarah Jackson, Taylar Flythe, Leah Weaver, Maria Fadri

Agenda

1. Updates + Community Debrief a. Timeline – Entering Next Phase b. Community Debrief i. What has everyone been hearing & learning from their neighborhoods? • Leah shared comments from neighborhood facebook page – pickleball and tennis, Concept C preferred, would like both paved and unpaved trails • Sarah shared that Planet Peace Farm expressed some sensitivity to the high level of development in the community in their area overall. • Ian asked if there was a more robust design process to change the sport court area if pickleball goes out of fashion. Lauryn noted that sports courts were the most polarized element in the community engagement & that they would be discussed in detail later in the meeting. • Lauren noted that they didn’t get the follow-up question about sports courts. Lauryn explained that if respondents didn’t select sports courts as the top 3 items that they’d prioritize, they did not receive that question. ii. What outreach methods seem most effective? • No questions or feedback from the CAG following Lauryn’s summary of most popular means of communication about the event and new engagement. 2. Community Engagement Results a. July 10th Public Meeting b. Online Survey

Agenda •

Roger asked what is “adventure play” – Lauryn provided a high level definition and some examples, explaining that adventure play tends to include more “risk” elements that are safe but introduce kids to explore and test limits or develop problem-solving skills – typically involving some more natural elements as well.

•

Bob was curious about the paved/unpaved trails – how do we reconcile ADA requirements for portions of trail that are unpaved? Lauryn explained that there’s an outdoor accessibility standard for unpaved trails which are regulations that the city would need to meet, which is separate from ADA. Shawsheen added that if you have used the American Tobacco Trail, that’s an example of an accessible unpaved trail in the area. Emma shared the access board guidelines: https://www.access-board.gov/files/aba/guides/outdoorguide.pdf

3. Concept Plan Discussion a. Direction for consolidated single park concept b. Discussion • Mikayla suggested that if we decide to not have a sport court, people may prefer to change the open space use from pollinator garden to something like a multiuse field. • Iain asked if there would be an additional traditional playground to go along to adventure play for younger kids or those with different accessibility needs. Lauryn noted that accessibility needs and age-appropriate play can be met within the category of adventure play design. Trails & Site Layout Discussion • Brian noted that there was one concept where unpaved trails at the East side of the park might disrupt runs for people who would like to use the paved trail loop. Lauryn noted that we would be sure that the paved trail loop would remain continuous so that users would not have to cross into unpaved trails while using the paved system. • Mikayla asked what the approximate distance of trail on the new plan would be. Kimberly explained that the major outer loop from east to west in the original plans was about a mile – however, with the intention of redesigning the trail system, we would need to recalculate. She noted that we would like to see a looped path that is paved and a looped path that is unpaved. • Iain also asked what the elevation rise/drop on the paved trail would be & that if this is going to be a loop for kids or strollers or wheelchairs it might be limited to where you can keep it flat. Kimberly noted that there is not much flat land in the park parcel overall so we would try to keep the grade (slope) minimal wherever possible.

Agenda •

•

• • •

•

Lauren noted that she loves the options of both trail types – it depends on her mood on which trail she can use and a lot of people would agree. Especially love the incorporation of nodes as well. Sarah reacted that if we plan to add additional paths, switchbacks, and trail nodes, we will have to be careful to factor that additional land disturbance, especially given the intensity of development we expect with other features of the park. Leah noted that since the neighborhood connects to the park on the east side, families will likely want to walk there with strollers. If the trail is too rough or natural for stroller use, it could make walkable access to the park more difficult for them. Lauren noted that strollers are typically designed to handle unpaved trails and that she has seen plenty of people use these on unpaved trails at Horseshoe. Sarah noted that continuous paved access through sidewalks along Oak Hill will connect to the paved paths of the park to help resolve that concern. Mikayla noted that being able to come into the park from paved sidewalks would work well as an alternative for neighbors. She also noted that as a person who has a disability, she does agree that keeping in mind slope in design is important. Kim asked if we have thought of adding pet waste stations throughout the park, or is this done during a different phase? Emma responded that: pet waste stations, trash receptacles, and benches are all standard amenities. And you are correct, final locations are chosen at a different phase. Shawsheen reminded the group that we’re at the concept plan design phase, not the schematic phase, which will come later and allow for more detailed discussion about design feasibility. Jenny asked as we're trying to retain as much of the tree canopy as possible and it's already a pretty constrained site - how would paved accessible trails (versus natural/compacted) affect trees/root systems, etc.? Lauryn responded that most likely we will be losing a few trees - those that have more than 30% of root zone disturbed, we have to remove them. However, we try to minimize tree removal as much as possible. Emma noted that from the permitting perspective, the material of the trail, whether compacted soil or concrete, doesn’t change the impact for tree removal from the perspective of the urban forestry experts. Roger and Mikayla like the idea of relocating the cabin. Mikayla noted concern about the cost associated with relocating the cabin. Mikayla suggested the name “Pecan Grove Park”. Lauryn noted that we are having a contractor come evaluate the historic cabin and they will provide a report about feasibility for preservation and cost estimate for moving it.

Agenda Brian asked if we’re intending to have bathrooms at the East side of the park? Lauryn noted that if we are trying to minimize disruption to natural elements through development, we recommend only having one set of restrooms on the West side, closer to the other developed amenities (sports court and playgrounds). She noted that it’s not impossible to have two restrooms but typically parks of this size only have one service area. • Lauren asked: I think horseshoe has a solar bathroom..is that an option? I may be butchering what they have. Emma confirmed that they have a composting toilet at Horseshoe. Brian expressed concern about this option, but Lauren has used the one at Horseshoe before and thought it was nice. Shawsheen noted that we use a contractor for maintenance and the reason it is located over there is because the park is not within the city limit and we do not have city sewer lines that connect to that park. We could chat with public utilities but typically that is not allowed if sewer lines are available. Kimberly noted that she had just used it on sunday at a park program and it was no different than a regular bathroom. Although this may depend on the day / time and maintenance schedule. • Iain noted that: I think the east side can be "undeveloped" and have a sinuous paved trail that minimizes slope. Total elevation change isn't a problem but cannot overstate how unpleasant steep trails are for strollers. This would also allow for a nice access for neighborhoods over there. Sports Courts Discussion • Shawsheen shared that Raleigh Parks is currently working on a smaller ~3 acre park. We’re proposing a multi-purpose court for use for pickleball, futsal, bike polo, or other uses. Reservations would be required for certain uses and lines on the court are busy but accommodate multiple uses. Baileywick Park has a good example of this kind of structure. Lauryn did note that Baileywick is a staffed site, unlike the current plan for Forestville Road Park. • Lauren asked what futsal is. Iain and Emma responded that it is a 5 vs 5 sort of soccer set up, similar to indoor soccer. Current court at Peach Road Park: https://raleighnc.gov/parks-and-recreation/places/peach-roadpark#paragraph--341676 • Roger commented that adding sports courts – because of the nature of the property, and differences in elevation – and the size of the property, we may not be able to do justice to any sport. • Mikayla agreed with Roger’s point and noted that it would change the feel of the park to include a sport court. If we did proceed, we would get more use out of it if it was a multi-use or universal one. We do also have a lot of resources in the area with the Buffaloe Road Athletic Park and other facilities developing in the city system. Having an open multi-use field could be a better alternative. If we •

Agenda

• •

•

still wanted to keep an environment aspect with pollinators, we could look at rain water gardens around the stream and low areas! That will also help with the drainage. Lean noted that Buffaloe Road doesn't have any pickleball or tennis courts though. It's more sports fields. Jenny also commented that considering where sports courts ranked, it feels like this is the one element that's a little "jammed in" - trying to pack so much programming into a relatively small park. Apologies if it's been explained elsewhere, but curious about how many other parks with sports courts, etc., is in relative proximity. Lauren asked if we have considered doing “outdoor” games like horseshoe in a “game” area we could even do a checker or huge chess board. It would be very unique- shuffleboard is another game I’ve seen as “outdoor”. Bekah noted that there were some write-in comments for these suggestions in the online survey but they were very few. Emma and Lauryn also noted that these were not popular choices in the initial input survey.

Iain suggested that I think it better to save room for a sports court, even if we're not sure what to put there. My only suggestion there is near the road and have it

Agenda lit, both for increasing usable hours in the spring and fall and to alleviate safety/crime risks that some community members have. Play Area Discussion • Lauren suggested canopy trails and tree houses in the adventure play area. • Roger really likes all the options for adventure play suggested in the slide deck. • Brian noted that the double slide looks amazing • Iain suggested that a mini parkour course for kids. The pump track at Forest Ridge was stampeded by kids running around and around. Leah note that she actually heard about the pump track when reaching out to people about this park. They said everyone has fun on them both kids and adults. • Lauren noted that this is her favorite thing about this park – the larger the space it can be the better. Brian agreed. • Leah suggested climbing features for bouldering. • Lauren noted that a tire swing would be so cute too – she grew up on those. • Shawsheen noted that these features do take up a fair amount of space – she encouraged the CAG to keep that in mind when also requesting a smaller play area or limits to tree removal. • Leah noted that she doesn’t know if this counts as adventure but the spinning activity at Lake Benson Park in Garner was by far the most popular activity and didn't take up a lot of room and the kids were piled on it. • Sarah loves including natural materials and that as exciting as that is we should also design in a way that encourages exploration of the natural features like the boulders as well. Bekah commented that urban forestry has identified sensitive species near the boulder outcropping - which would mean we would we would want to limit activity on those rocks if we are trying to protect that flora. • Iain agrees on keeping the adventure play in the forest. It doesn't have to be far into the woods (whatever works with species concerns and contour) but just have mature trees all around it to give it shade for kids and adults. • Mikayla suggested some features that would be accessible for smaller kids. She has some precedent photos she’d like to share with these ideas. Lauryn encouraged the CAG to add photos to the google drive folder. • Sarah commented that Adventure play can be slightly less accessible for our youngest and for children who have disabilities... but nature play lends itself to all bodies! Let's not make a massive play area that isn't inclusive...let's balance both play types Parking Discussion • Jenny commented that she likes that Option B follows the contours of the landscape, and places parking closest to Forestville Rd - as opposed to being

Agenda

•

more enmeshed (and potentially disruptive) to the rest of the park. A little hard to see in detail on my end... Iain commented that whichever concept you go with parking, I think there would be a minimum size where if you go too small the pecan grove would become unused.

4. Next Steps a. Midpoint CAG Experience Survey i. Survey Link: publicinput.com/forestvillecagexperience b. Q&A

Agenda

Forestville Road Park Community Advisory Group – Meeting #5 Attendees: Raleigh Parks - Lauryn Kabrich, Emma Liles, , Bekah Torcasso Sanchez, Kimberly Siran CAG Members - Andrew Stephenson, Bob Edgerton, Brian Ellis, Diya Patel, Iain Burnett, Lauren Neville Smith,, Mikayla Posey, Roger Montague, Sarah Jackson, Sharmaine Walker Unavailable: Raleigh Parks - TJ McCourt, Shawsheen Baker CAG Members - Gabrielle McLoughlin, Jenny Harper, Kevin Lewis, Kim Davis, Leah Weaver, Maria Fadri, Taylar Flythe

September 9, 2025 (5:30-7:00pm) Marsh Creek Community Center

Agenda 1. Updates a. Timeline Status b. Potential Property Acquisition • Mikayla commented that if the City doesn’t end up buying the property, it would be cool if this property was converted to a commercial real estate location - for commercial use adjacent to the park (coffee shop, etc.) c. Structural Assessment of Cabin 2. Concept Plan Review a. Overview and explanation of the draft design concept b. Charrette & Discussion • Bob asked how emergency access is evaluated in the design process – Kimberly explained that the fire department will help us to evaluate that part of our design plan during the meeting next week at the Internal City Sketch Plan meeting (9/15/25) – SCOPE-0081-2025. • Lauren commented that maintaining as much of the tree canopy as possible would still be her preference, even in the adventure play area where we can. • Mikayla liked the idea of doing a rainwater garden as part of the GSI features (adjacent to play area, instead of a traditional SCM with standing water & possibility of more mosquitos) – and would we get to use Rainwater Rewards funding for some of this? Lauryn explained the way we work with the Raleigh Stormwater department on development processes with these and the incentives they offer for Raleigh Parks. • *Design Charrette – collated written comments to be provided in a separate document*

Agenda •

• •

•

• •

•

Iain: Loves the adventure play area, likes the idea of adding treehouses. Great design. Suggests more dirt trails. Give people more choice, even if just connectors. Bob and Roger pass on comments – Roger is happy with the concept. Sarah: Likes this concept plan a lot – loves that the eastern side stays more untouched, loved ideas shared by everyone – wishes that we could see slightly less of the paved trails. Maybe close the loop of the paved trail along one side of the water, and then leave one full loop unpaved along the other side. • Lauryn noted that the current design was shown in an effort to include paved trails onto the east side of the stream to be inclusive of members that have mobility challenges with the unpaved trails, so that there is access to the rock outcrops & old homested location. Mikayla: Really like the design a lot. With the additional land/more space, maybe we could have a more open field for movie nights or community gathering events. Mikayla does like having more of the paved trails for mobility access. Knightdale Station Park has trails with painted lines that they can follow for a set distance (such as a mile). Really likes the treehouse theme/vibe for the park/play area. Maybe we could use the edge of the bathroom structure to build out play features. Maybe we could include a community garden area or even a food forest near the cabin. Lauren: Suggests more bump outs – really love those; would be cool to create a theme for the bump outs, like sensory exhibits or maybe trolls or public art. Maybe activities along bump outs, like yard games set up. Also liked the idea of the paved loop closing around the creek. Shermaine: Really likes the mix of paved and unpaved, as currently illustrated, and the alternate access into the park. Andrew: He and his wife are nervous about the adventure park not ending up being as exciting as it sounds – for example, if the budget ends up less than we would hope. Maintain whimsy in design as far as features, artistic approach (fairys, trolls, etc.) Brian: Really likes the overall design – there’s space to grow over time with amenities and features. Brian is a big fan of paved paths for walking and running with his daughter – so the more paved trails extend that bonding time. Really likes the bump outs and would like to see another one in the pollinator area. Diya: Definitely likes the layout and balance of features – play area and pollinator meadow are nice – strollers are likely difficult for unpaved trails with parents with kids. Sarah noted that youth will find the tunnel under Oak Hill Drive really cool too.

Agenda •

Bob would like for us to consider more sustainable paving materials than asphault, if possible. • Lauryn explained that typically paved trails are most often concrete and asphault. • Mikayla shared the idea to have parallel trails - paved trails on the inside and unpaved on the outside. • Lauryn noted that this would require substantially more clearing for the trails & could impact the level of tree canopy/shade over the trails. 3. Cabin Discussion a. Public Art & Interpretation options • Sarah loves art but does not love the idea of taking the structure people lived in and reassembling it into something else – we should preserve the structure as it was built. • Lauren doesn’t think the house in it’s current shape tells the whole story of what the land was, so intentionally turning it into art could help better tell that story. • Iain suggests that putting the cabin near Forestville Road could compromise the integrity of the structure over time – keeping it tucked further into the park may be a good idea for preserving and honoring it. 4. Next Steps a. Consensus Voting Reminder b. Public Meeting #3 – September 22, 2025 c. Online Survey #3 – September 22 – October 6 d. Q&A • Iain suggested that the CAG experience survey could be improved by adding more questions related to the experience members have with each other and questions that get at how well they feel their contributions were incorporated into the design decisions  Bekah encouraged him to email us with any suggested questions he thinks would be good to add, noting that we are hoping to standardize this survey for future CAGs as well.

Agenda

Forestville Road Park Community Advisory Group – Meeting #6 December 2, 2025 Virtual – Microsoft Teams Attendees: Raleigh Parks: Lauryn Kabrich, Shawsheen Baker, TJ McCourt, Kimberly Siran, Bekah Torcasso Sanchez

CAG: Kim Davis, Bob Edgerton, Lauren Smith, Roger Montague, Mikayla Posey, Sarah Jackson, Andrew Stephenson, Iain Burnett, Sharmaine Walker

Minutes

1. Updates a. Timeline Status • Shift in timeline by 1 month before adoption phase (concept plan phase from Aug-Oct 2025 to Aug-November 2025; draft master plan from Nov-Dec 2025 to Dec-Jan 2026) b. Property Acquisition Update – cannot proceed; after appraisal – value is beyond budget for acquisition. c. Structural Assessment of Cabin Update • No major concerns noted. 2. Community Engagement Recap a. Review of engagement results from Concept Plan Phase

3. Final Concept Plan Review a. Overview and explanation of the draft design concept b. Cabin confirmation c. Discussion • Call for artist to reinterpret the cabin should definitely keep in mind that the cabin was a place where people lived and was a space that served as a home. That kind of interpretation of history should be centered in how we describe the project for a call for a public artist. • We should include interpretive signage around the public art or at the original site of the cabin.

Agenda •

Great idea to repurpose the cabin! As a Forestville Park CAG representative, would we receive an invitation to be a part of the Raleigh Art Department phase of artist selection? COR Answer: Yes! The CAG will be notified when we kick off the process for identifying a public artist and we will see who all is interested in engaging in the artist selection process. 4. Phasing Discussion a. Priorities for Phased Development  Consider having pollinator meadow/food forest in phase 1 so that there’s time for plantings to mature earlier than later… however, COR notes that landscaping (including potential for edible landscaping) will likely happen in both phases.  Support from CAG for proposed prioritization buckets – paved trails and adventure play highest priorities for community b. Options for Development Agreement funds • Cabin Stabilization (~$25k) • Trail buildout could be cost prohibitive if we need to build out creek crossing bridges as part of that early allocation of $600k. • CAG is more interested in Option 1 than Option 2 – but would like to see stormwater mitigation incorporated into considerations for how funds are allocated. 5. Next Steps a. Consensus votes on Concept Plan and Prioritization will take place immediately after the meeting tonight (due Friday 12/5).

a. Final Meeting

Agenda • Vote outcome (3rd wk of Jan): TBD b. Concept Plan • Vote outcome: TBD c. Prioritization • Vote outcome: TBD b. Final CAG Meeting & Celebration c. Q&A • ACTION ITEM: Send information to CAG about how to connect with their city council representative. • Stormwater concerns with new construction kicking off (Milburnie Ridge development)- will Raleigh Parks be able to continue monitoring for impacts? (lessons learned from Solis)

Agenda

Forestville Road Park Community Advisory Group – Meeting #7 Attendees: CAG: Brian Ellis, Iain Burnett, Sarah Jackson, Roger Montague, Bob Edgerton, Mikayla Posey, Andrew Stephenson Parks Staff: Lauryn, Kimberly, TJ, Emma, Bekah, Shawsheen January 21, 2026 Marsh Creek Community Center

Note: Dinner will be provided – come hungry! Vegetarian & gluten-free options will be available.

Agenda 1. Updates a. Prioritization Consensus Vote Results b. Development Agreement Funding

Notes: • Who says OK we’re going to proceed with the stabilization steps outlined? o Lauryn explained these will be recommended to City Council for approval, as part of the Master Plan report. • Who designs the interim stormwater mitigation & erosion control? o Lauryn explained that the City has both in-house and on-call consultants to help with engineering and planning for interim efforts. • If approved – when might we start to see updates to the site? o TJ responded that second half of this year will fall within the FY27 budget and we’ll be able to proceed with approved plans, including site stabilization. • Typical estimate for design costs is 10-15% of construction budget. After site stabilization, development agreement funding will be used to advance schematic design as much as we can with the funding we currently have. This may mean something like a 60% design instead of a 90% design, at the end of the day, if funding is not sufficient to get us all the way through schematic design.

2. Master Plan Report Review a. Discussion b. Q&A

Agenda Notes: • Iain: Surprised about the future greenway connection running through the park – is the greenway in the final master plan? o Lauryn: Not exactly – this trail spur is to allow for future connection. The Greenway has Hodges Mill Creek corridor (west to east corridor, just north of the site), and we are proposing to add the stream corridor that goes through Forestville to the north, connecting to Hodges Mill Creek as a designated greenway corridor. By securing greenway easements on the properties north of the park, we can develop out the greenway in the future once there’s funding and it fits within the broader planning process for the greenways. If property is sold and rezoned prior to the greenway corridor update, we’ll be able to intervene during rezoning to secure dedicated easement. Also, Raleigh Parks has recently update the City’s UDO to encourage developers to build greenway trails. • Andrew was looking for the appendix on the cabin assessment specifically. • Action item: Lauryn to share draft report with PRGAB members Bob and Carrie, before their meeting with AD Ken on Friday (1/23). • Action item: Make page numbers white for contast against footer bar being dark green • During the schematic design process – we’ll develop the layout and use for the multiuse court (additional engagement will be completed). • With the planned communities around the future park – have we reached out to the other developers to see if they’re interested in donating to the park? o Good question. With the mechanisms we have available – a development agreement is our best avenue for soliciting donations like that. Since none of that was previously secured with these developments prior to them breaking ground, it may be less likely that we’d be able to approach them with a donation request. It would not be our normal process. However, we do have a dedicated staff member who works on sponsorships and partnerships, so they may be able to get involved in exploring funding - having an adopted master plan is usually the thing we can bring to developers to leverage those kinds of agreements, if we are able to explore those avenues. • Bob would prefer that we present with printed copies of the master plan report at the February Parks Committee meeting and requests that they have a month to review, calling a vote at the March Parks Committee meeting. • Restrooms: How will the design (restroom/picnic shelter combo) fit in the space designated on the concept plan?

Agenda

• •

•

o Iain suggests that currently, he would assume the space should be larger and will eat into the designated Tot Area of the current drawing. Lauryn and Kimberly explained that in schematic design, we’ll be able to refine the design, based on grading, to fit the terraces and restroom/picnic shelter footprint to the land. Brian thinks it’s excellent – it is a very easily digestible report. o Action item: Can we add a glossery for acronyms/jargon?. Going back to the drawing, do we still have parallel parking on Oak Hill Drive? o Yes – that is part of the designated street type for the future road. The full road is not required to be built by Raleigh Parks; we will only build the segment of Oak Hill Drive from Forestville to the entry drive to the park. Mikayla: Worry about the SCM/pond near the tot area as this is likely to get messy/dangerous with the play area right next to the tot area. o Lauryn confirmed that the SCM type, design, size, and exact location will be determined/refined in schematic design - but also regulatory requirements for SCMs include things like fencing. Safety is parks’ priority! Will there be a bridge over the step pools at the southern part of the park? o Depending on how the feature is designed, there may be a boardwalk or bridge, designed in tandem with the stormwater feature for best fit. How do you decide how many EV charging spots to put? o Raleigh Parks had a lengthy discussion with the Sustainability Office about balancing this. It was decided that for parks bond projects, we include 2 EV spots (using 1 duel head charger), and include infrastructure (conduit and power lines) for future expansion. We know that proportionately there’s not enough demand for more at this point in Raleigh. Can we look into mobile EV chargers that use solar panels? (precedent in Boone). o Shawsheen noted that we have 2 or 3 parks where we have that. It’s a big plate with an arm that comes up with solar panels over – you drive the car onto the big plate under the roof. https://raleighnc.gov/climate-action-andsustainability/services/electric-vehicle-chargers-city-parks What is the process for renaming the park? o We would hold a community engagement process closer to opening the park – either in late schematic design or during permitting and construction. Would it be possible to get NCDOT to build the sidewalk connection passed the single family residential house on 4925 Forestville Road? o Unlikely, but we will ask the property owners nicely to consider it 😊😊

3. Upcoming Milestones a. Parks Committee – February 5

Agenda b. PRGAB – February 19 c. City Council – March TBD

Notes: • These dates may change, pending adjustments to Parks Committee and PRGAB review cycles.

4. Next Steps a. Consensus Vote – Master Plan Report b. Endpoint CAG Experience Survey 5. Celebration!

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources

Forestville Road Park Community Advisory Group Onboarding March 25, 2024

Introductions

Situation Assessment • Understand the historical, cultural, and planning context before starting a project • Proactively identify and address any issues that may be contentious during the planning process • Identify key stakeholders and Community Advisory Group (CAG) membership

View the Forestville Road Park Property Situation Assessment on the project webpage

Community Advisory Group

CAG Purpose • Diverse committee of ~15 people, representing surrounding community and interest groups • CAG members help facilitate information sharing between the community and planning staff • CAG members vote on key decision points and make final recommendation of the master plan to PRGAB • Built around a consensus-based master planning process

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Name

Group Represented

Andrew Stephenson

General Community

Bob Edgerton

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board

Diya Patel

Raleigh Youth Council

Iain Burnett

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board

Kevin Lewis

General Community – Town of Knightdale

Brian Ellis

Gabrielle McLoughlin Jenny Harper Kim Davis

Lauren Neville Smith Leah Weaver Maria Fadri

Mikayla Posey

Roger Montague

General Community

Raleigh Youth Council

Raleigh Historic Resources and Museum Advisory Board General Community General Community General Community General Community

General Community Historic Interests

Sarah Jackson

General Community

Taylar Flythe

General Community

Sharmaine Walker

General Community

Community Advisory Group Membership

CAG Charter Overview

Roles of the CAG 1) Participate in a process of discovery, information sharing, and education. 2) Play a direct role in developing, reviewing, and discussing the overall vision and specific elements of the Master Plan for Forestville Road Park. 3) Work collaboratively to resolve issues and balance interests relative to the development of Forestville Road Park. 4) Inform the public about the topics and considerations being addressed in the planning process and communicate feedback received to the CAG and Design Team.

Final Products The Design Team will work with the CAG to develop 5 products over the course of the Master Planning Process:

1) Design Goals 2) Design Alternatives 3) Draft Concept Plan 4) Priorities for Phased Development 5) Master Plan Report

Project Timeline Initial Input Phase • April – May 2025

Design Alternates Phase • June – July 2025

Concept Plan Phase

Draft Master Plan

Master Plan Adoption

• August – October 2025

• November – December 2025

• January – February 2026

Consensus Voting • Consensus votes will be conducted at 4 milestones: – Design Goals – Draft Concept Plan – Priorities for Phased Development – Master Plan Report & Recommendation to PRGAB

• Vote using a five‐point scale to indicate level of support

Phase

Initial Input + Design Goals

Design Alternatives

Draft Concept Plan + Priorities

Draft Master Plan Master Plan Adoption

Tentative Date April 2025 April 2025 April 2025 - May 2025 May 2025 May 2025 June 2025 July 2025 July 2025 July 2025 September 2025 September 2025

Online Survey

September 2025 - October 2025

October 2025 November 2025 December 2025 January 2026 January 2026 February 2026

Miscellaneous Highlights • All CAG meetings are open to public attendance • Attendance of at least 75% of CAG meetings is mandatory – Attendance will be evaluated at two points: • After the Design Alternatives Phase • Prior to the final CAG meeting

• The ultimate authority for adoption and implementation of the master plan rests with Raleigh City Council

Q&A

Reminder • Please fill out the scheduling survey by EOD today (3/25), if you have not already! • https://forms.office.co m/g/gYVd6Kq4xB

Request • Please send Lauryn a short bio (2-5 sentences) to be included on the project engagement portal by EOD Monday (3/31)! • For an example, you can reference the CAG tab on the River Cane Wetland Park engagement portal: o https://engage.raleighnc.gov/rivercanewetlandpark#tab-45883

Thank You! Questions? Contact Lauryn Kabrich - Park Planner at lauryn.kabrich@raleighnc.gov or 919-664-9124

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources

Forestville Road Park Project Overview

Community Advisory Group Meeting #1 April 23, 2024

Agenda • • • •

Icebreaker + Introductions Park Planning 101 Project Overview Site Overview – Area Context – Natural Resources – Site History

• Design Goals Brainstorming + Discussion

Icebreaker Activity

Introductions

Name

Group Represented

Andrew Stephenson

General Community

Bob Edgerton

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board

Brian Ellis

General Community

Diya Patel

Raleigh Youth Council

Gabrielle McLoughlin

Raleigh Youth Council

Iain Burnett

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board

Jenny Harper

Raleigh Historic Resources and Museum Advisory Board

Kevin Lewis

General Community

Kim Davis

General Community

Lauren Neville Smith

General Community

Leah Weaver

General Community

Maria Fadri

General Community

Mikayla Posey

General Community

Roger Montague

Historic Interests

Sarah Jackson

General Community

Sharmaine Walker

General Community

Taylar Flythe

General Community

Community Advisory Group Membership

Design Resource Team – Core Team Project Manager: Lauryn Kabrich Landscape Architect Kimberly Siran

Planning Support TJ McCourt + Emma Liles

Historic Resources

Land Stewardship

Douglas Porter

Sean Gough

Maintenance Mike Dagrosa + Mike Gagliano

Design Resource Team - General Name

Department

Division

Workgroup

William (Junior) Clemmons

PRCR

Recreation

Special Populations

Julia Whitfield

PRCR

Resources

Arts

Lindsey Dobbs

PRCR

Recreation

Aquatics – Buffaloe Road Athletic Park

Erika Nelson

PRCR

Recreation

Community Centers – Marsh Creek

William (Billy) Aubut

PRCR

Recreation

Active Recreation

Carter Roberson

Transportation

Mobility Strategy

Matthew (Matt) Bailey

Planning and Development

Comprehensive Planning

Long Range Planning

Collette Kinane

Planning and Development

Comprehensive Planning

Historic Preservation

Kendall Kausler

Engineering Services

Stormwater

Green Stormwater Infrastructure

Shelia Lynch

Housing and Neighborhoods

Neighborhood Enrichment Services

Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources

Park Planning 101 Bringing People to Parks and Parks to People

What does Raleigh's park system look like?

City of Raleigh

480,000

Total Population

City of Raleigh

150 Square Miles or

96,000 Acres Total Land Area

5,700 Acres

County & State Parks

135

City of Raleigh Developed Parks

Undeveloped Park Properties

6,300 Acres City Parkland

4,000 Acres Greenway Properties & Easements

120+ Miles Greenway Trails

+/- 250 Miles Total Proposed Greenway Trails

16,000+ Acres

Protected Open Space >15% of Total Land Area

>80%

Contiguous Open Space Network

Raleigh Parks Facilities             

Playgrounds – 115 Tennis Courts – 112 Pickleball Courts – 12 Ballfields – 60 Athletic Fields – 22 Dog Parks/Runs – 8 Pools – 8 (4 year-round/4 seasonal) Neighborhood & Community Centers – 36 Active Adult Centers – 2 Art Centers – 2 Environmental Education Centers– 3 Nature Preserves – 3 Historic Site & Venues – 14

How do we measure park access in different areas of Raleigh?

Core Experiences Walking or Riding a Bike: The types of amenities that are found in Raleigh parks and greenways that provide this experience include hiking trails, walking paths, and greenway trails. Open Play: Amenities found in open play spaces include sports fields and unprogrammed lawn spaces. Playgrounds: Play spaces that range in age and ability - from nature play to traditional play areas.

Gathering or Community Spaces: Parks that include pavilions and picnic tables that can support groups large and small fall within this category. Nature Spaces: The newest core experience, evolved out of the Parks Plan Update, which includes trails, forested areas, and riparian corridors.

Core Experiences: 10 Minute Walk Service Area

Park Master Plans + Community Engagement

Project Development Process

What is a Park Master Plan? • • • • • • •

Collaborative planning process Shared community vision & values Goals, needs, & priorities Long-range: guide for future development Conceptual: flexibility to evolve over time Inclusive, context-sensitive, & sustainable Preliminary cost estimates

Master Plan Process

Opportunities & Constraints

Vision & Goals

Design Alternatives

Draft Concept Plan

Proposed Master Plan

Community Advisory Group • • • • • •

Representative of diverse perspectives Meet regularly throughout project Guided by CAG Chater Promote outreach activities Help collect feedback on behalf of the City Provide input and direction at project milestones • Consensus voting on key decisions • Not a substitute for broader public participation

Project Overview: Background Information

Master Plan Funding • Development agreement with Capital Properties of Raleigh & Pippin Properties (Townes at Milburnie Ridge) • $600,000 lump sum contribution to cover: – Master Planning – Cultural & Structural Site Stabilization – Schematic Design

Comparable Parks: Eastgate Park • 4200 Quail Hollow Drive • 25.3 acres • Amenities: – Neighborhood Center - unstaffed – Traditional Playground – Picnic Shelter – Basketball Court – Tennis Court – Multipurpose Field

Comparable Parks: Spring Forest Road Park • 4203 Spring Forest Road • 21.8 acres • Amenities: – Paved walking trails – Large Picnic Shelter – 4 Tennis Courts – Youth Baseball Field – Open Space

Comparable Parks: Wooten Meadow Park • 2801 West Millbrook Road • 20.5 acres • Amenities: – Paved walking trails – Green Stormwater Infrastructure – Open Lawn Space – Meadow Habitats

Project Overview: Site Context

Street Plan – Proposed Neighborhood Streets

5-Minute Drive Demographic Analysis • Median Household Income: Higher than City average • Race & Ethnicity: Generally reflective of City averages • Age: 20-34 age range significantly lower than City average

Unique Features –

Granite Outcrops & Springs/Seeps

Project Overview: Historic Context

Historic Context • Property was once part of approx. 600acre plantation owned by Kearney Upchurch • 1860 census records indicate 20 enslaved persons held in bondage at Upchurch Plantation • Possible that onsite cabin may be related to a nineteenth century slave dwelling

Cabin

Other Existing Structures

Design Goals Discussion

6.5 7 Acres

6.5 6 Acres

Mentimeter Activity menti.com Code: 6882 0357

Next Steps

Upcoming Milestones - Online Survey -

Live Monday, April 28 through Sunday, May 18 Will be posted on project webpage & engagement portal Provide thoughts on the vision and goals for the park & share what parks are frequented

- Public Meeting -

Monday, May 5 Marsh Creek Community Center Learn more about the future park site & provide thoughts on the vision and goals for the park

Upcoming Milestones - CAG Meeting 2 -

Tuesday, May 20 Virtual – Microsoft Teams Consensus vote will occur via Microsoft Form Summary of engagement results & discussion of vision and goals

Input Needed! • How does everyone feel about Marsh Creek Community Center as the CAG meeting location? • If we host a group site visit – should that be on a weekday evening or on a weekend?

Project Timeline Initial Input Phase • April – May 2025

Design Alternates Phase • June – July 2025

Concept Plan Phase

Draft Master Plan

Master Plan Adoption

• August – October 2025

• November – December 2025

• January – February 2026

Forestville Road Property Comments of Roger Montague 4/23/2025

People Michael Upchurch - 1624 -1681 (first Upchurch to arrive in America) Richard U, James U, Richard U, Richard U, James U (Michael to Kearney) Kearney Upchurch- 1808-1882 (established 600 acre cotton plantation which included the park property)

James W. Upchurch- 1839-1913 (built farmhouse that stood on NW corner of park property) William Kearney Ivan Upchurch- 1875-1964 (Last Upchurch to farm the property. Lived in house built by James W.)

Hallie Verna Upchurch Montague- 1921-1997 (Grew up in house built by James W. Last Upchurch to own park property.)

Roger Montague- 1946- ( Forestville Road Park CAG member)

James W. Upchurch Jane Ellen Pace Upchurch Grandchildren (L-R) - Cary, Erma, Sam, Trubychildren of William Kearney Ivan Upchurch

William Kearney Ivan Upchurch Hallie Sorrell Hutspeth Upchurch

Location - south side of house built by James W. Upchurch

Louis or Dallas Upchurch House?

James W. Upchurch House Ivan Upchurch House

Kearney Upchurch House

Kearney Upchurch Family Cemetery

Kearney Upchurch House -2010

James W. Upchurch House (NW corner of park property)

Roger, Peggy, and Marsha Montague - Great grandchildren of James W. Upchurch and children of last Upchurch to own the Forestville Road property.

James W. Upchurch burial plot Separate Kitchen

Main House

Watering Trough Pecan Orchard Scuppernong Grape Vine

Catalpa Trees Natural Spring

Tennis Court Hunting for Arrowheads

Tenant House and Barns

Tobacco Barns

“Freddie’s Path”

Tenant House, Out Buildings, and original location of log cabin

Pack House, Grading Room, & Ordering Pit

General area of rock quarry and saw mill? https://thescholarship.ecu.edu/items/4b36d165-2f91-49e7-8e5c-6c1797b28318

Feed Barn and Stables Tool Shed

Wood Shed Main House

Smoke House

Hog Pen

Joe & Hallie Montague House

Tenant House, Out Buildings, and original location of log cabin

Feed Barn, post 1964

Log Cabin Tenant House Demolished

Tenant House Demolished

Log Cabin

Historical, Botanical Importance Pecan Grove 100+ years old

January, 2025

Possible Historic Structure

The cabin was discovered inside a house on the property in the late 1960’s. The cabin was dismantled and reconstructed in its current location by Joe Montague, husband of Hallie Verna Upchurch Montague.

Possible Historic Structure April, 1970

April, 1970

2010

April, 1970

Possible Archeologically Significant Sites

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources

Forestville Road Park Project Overview

Community Advisory Group Meeting #2 May 20, 2025

Agenda • • • • • •

General Reminders Community Debrief Community Engagement Results Design Goals Consensus Vote Explainer Next Steps

General Reminders: CAG Google Drive Walkthrough

6.5 7 Acres

6.5 6 Acres

Community Debrief • What has everyone been hearing and learning from their neighborhoods & networks? • What outreach methods seem most effective?

Community Engagement Results

Initial Input Phase Highlights • Online Survey: 155 participants – 47 signed up for email subscriber list!

• Public Meeting: ~25 attendees

How would you & your family get to Forestville Road Park?

What local park(s) do you and your household members visit regularly?

Most common “other” options: Harper Park, Knightdale Station, Lake Lynn Park

Most common “other” options: Rolesville Park, Durant Nature Preserve

Which types of amenities would you and your household members be most likely to use at Forestville Road Park? Paved Walking Trails Sport Courts (basketball, tennis, pickleball, etc.) Nature Playground Restrooms Picnic Areas / Shelter Unpaved Walking / Hiking Trails Traditional Playground Field or Lawn for Flexible Use Outdoor Fitness Station Community Garden Mountain Bike Trails Disc Golf Unstaffed Neighborhood Center Outdoor Games (Horsehoe, Bocce, etc.)

10 10 8 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1

How would you like to see the history of the site acknowledged or explored?

Help us come up with creative ideas for Forestville Road Park:

Other Notable Highlights / Themes • Connectivity & Traffic – Desire for sidewalk connectivity, trails to adjacent neighborhoods, and exploring connection to the greenway trail network

• Nature / Natural Feel • Uniqueness • Idea: Consider parallel parking along Oak Hill Drive, to eliminate/reduce the amount of parking lot onsite

Design Goals

Design Goals • Four Themes: – Honor History – Foster Community – Conserve Nature – Inspire Play

Honor History Forestville Road Park will interpret the site's rich and layered history, including its past as part of a 600-acre planation, its evidence of Indigenous uses of the land, and its example of 20th century Wake County agrarian culture, by prioritizing educational opportunities and creating space for future stories.

Foster Community Forestville Road Park will serve as a hub for intergenerational gathering, volunteerism, and relationship building, with walkable connections to adjacent neighborhoods and a shared space that the community can shape and celebrate.

Conserve Nature Forestville Road Park will enhance and celebrate the site's natural features, with a special emphasis on preserving legacy trees, maintaining contiguous tree canopy, and highlighting the stream, creating a natural respite in the midst of a developing area.

Inspire Play Forestville Road Park will encourage play and exploration for all ages and abilities through thoughtfully designed play spaces that nurture creativity and emphasize the natural surroundings.

Consensus Voting

Consensus Voting • Consensus votes will be conducted at 4 milestones: – Design Goals We are here! – Draft Concept Plan – Priorities for Phased Development – Master Plan Report & Recommendation to PRGAB

• Vote using a five‐point scale to indicate level of support

Five-Point Scale Member fully supports the item

Member can live with the item

Member will not support the item

1 - Endorsement

3 - Agreement with Minor Reservations

5 - Block

2 - Endorsement with Minor Point of Contention

4 - Stand Aside with Major Reservations

Member likes the item

Member has a formal disagreement but will not block or hold up the item

Levels of Consensus Consensus All CAG Members rate the item as 1-3 (endorsement, endorsement with minor point of contention, or agreement with minor reservations)

Consensus with Major Reservations At least one CAG Member rates the item as a 4 (stand aside with major reservations)

No Consensus At least one CAG Member rates the item as a 5 (block)

Next Steps

Upcoming Milestones Site Visit -

Tuesday, June 3 – 5:30-7:30pm - Park & meet at Buffaloe Road Athletic Park at 5:30pm - Bus will transport group to and from the park site - Return to Buffaloe Road Athletic Park by 7:30pm

CAG Meeting 3 - Date: TBA – Late June - Location: Marsh Creek Community Center

Project Timeline Initial Input Phase • April – May 2025

Design Alternates Phase • June – July 2025

Concept Plan Phase

Draft Master Plan

Master Plan Adoption

• August – October 2025

• November – December 2025

• January – February 2026

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources

Forestville Road Park Community Advisory Group Meeting #3 June 24, 2025

Agenda • General Reminders – Final Design Goals – Site Visit Debrief • Stormwater Mangement Presentation • Design Alternatives • Next Steps

General Reminders

Design Goals • Four Themes: – Honor History – Foster Community – Conserve Nature – Inspire Play

Site Visit Debrief

Site Visit Debrief • Are there any takeaways or observations from the site visit that would be useful to share with the group? – Anything interesting that you saw or learned?

Site Visit Updates

Site Visit Updates • Raleigh Stormwater issued a Notice of Violation to Solis Buffaloe developer

Stormwater Management Presentation

Design Alternatives

Design Alternative A

Design Alternative B

Design Alternative C

Next Steps

Upcoming Milestones Public Meeting 2 - Date: July 10, 2025 - Time: 6 – 8 pm - Location: Marsh Creek Community Center

Online Survey - Live July 10 – July 24, 2025 - Will be posted on project webpage & engagement portal - Provide input on preferred design alternative/preferred aspects of the designs

Project Timeline Initial Input Phase • April – May 2025

Design Alternates Phase • June – July 2025

Concept Plan Phase

Draft Master Plan

Master Plan Adoption

• August – October 2025

• November – December 2025

• January – February 2026

Raleigh Stormwater

Community Advisory Group Stormwater Overview June 24th, 2025

Agenda • • • •

Introduction to Stormwater Stormwater Control Measures Green Stormwater Infrastructure Raleigh Stormwater Regulations

Mission Statement Manage stormwater to preserve and protect life, support healthy natural resources, and complement sustainable growth for the community.

Vision Statement Be the “smartest” stormwater program possible to economically and equitably achieve our mission.

Be Stormwater Smart!

Utility & Financial Management

Floodplain Management

Infrastructure & Drainage Assistance Projects

Outreach and Engagement

Development Reviews & Inspections

Water Quality & Green Stormwater Infrastructure

MS4 Stormwater System Watershed Planning & Asset Management Operations & Maintenance

Stormwater 101

The Source of Pollution Photo: Environmental Protection Agency

How Stormwater Runoff Changes with Development

Photo: Environmental Protection Agency

Stormwater Control Measures

Stormwater Control Measures Water Quantity

Water Quality

• How MUCH water (Also called Peak Discharge)

• How CLEAN is the water

There are more than 2,000 stormwater devices in the City of Raleigh

Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI)

Raleigh Promotes Green Stormwater Infrastructure Big Picture: Preserve the function of natural systems • • • •

Floodplains Riparian Corridors (Buffers) Soils Tree Conservation

Image Source: Center for Watershed Protection

Raleigh Promotes Green Stormwater Infrastructure

Cistern

Constructed Wetland

Green Roof

Rain Garden

Permeable Pavement

Bioretention Area

GSI Benefits

Cooling of surrounding air Filtering of air pollution Providing wildlife/pollinator habitat

Beautification Absorption of stormwater runoff Filtering of stormwater pollution

Mimics natural hydrologic processes

City GSI Evaluation Policy Key Desired Outcomes: • Lead by example with use of GSI in City development

• Use GSI instead of grey infrastructure for compliance • Provide benefits beyond required stormwater management

• Develop GSI champions in City departments

"All City-led projects that disturb land will evaluate the use of GSI early in conceptual design"

GSI Improves Community Resiliency and Health

City-led GSI Projects – Park Highlights

Wooten Meadow Park

Raleigh Rose Garden

GSI Maintenance Crew

Raleigh Stormwater Regulations

Raleigh Stormwater Reviews Development Plans From small improvements at a home to shopping centers and residential subdivisions

Photo Credit

Types of Stormwater Permits ▪ Land Disturbance Grading

Erosion and sediment control during construction

▪ Stormwater Control

Permanent compliance with water quality and flooding regulations

▪ Stormwater Conveyance

Pipes and swales sized and built correctly

▪ Riparian Buffer

Protect stream buffers, if present

▪ Floodplain

Avoid development, other impacts to floodplains

▪ Watershed Supply Watershed

Special requirements in drinking water watersheds

Photo Credit

Erosion Controls keep sediment out of streams Any site disturbing 12,000 sf or more must be permitted. See issues? Call 919-996-3940

Photo Credit

Nutrient Regulations Protect Aquatic Habitats Neuse River is impaired for nutrients. Excess nutrients lead to algal blooms, decreased oxygen levels, and fish kills.

Developers build stormwater control measures (SCMs).

Image Source: Roger Winstead/NC State Communications

Riparian Buffers and Wetland & Waterway Regulations Directly Protect Aquatic Habitats Raleigh staff ensure State and Federal regulations are followed. Buffers are 50' or larger from the top of stream bank. Photo Credit

Image Source: Center for Watershed Protection

Floodplain Regs Indirectly Protect Riparian Corridor New Regulations in 2022 restrict grading in the floodplain. New regulations in 2024 identify floodplains further upstream.

City Stream Programs

The Majority of Raleigh’s 700 Miles of Creeks & Streams are Privately Owned

City-led Stream & Riparian Buffer Enhancement

DNP Stream Restoration- Summer 2025 Worthdale Park Stream Restoration – Summer 2025

Existing Conditions - Durant Nature Preserve (DNP)

Millbrook Park Stream Buffer (4 years)

Buffer Builder Bags (B3) & NCSU Stream Repair Workshops • Free native shrub and tree seedlings provided. • Helps prevent erosion and create a streamside buffer.

Questions? Kendall Kausler Senior Stormwater Engineer & GSI Advocate kendall.kausler@raleighnc.gov Sally Hoyt Stormwater Plan Review Supervisor & GSI Advocate sally.hoyt@raleighnc.gov

Report Stormwater Issues to 919-996-3940

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources

Forestville Road Park Project Overview

Community Advisory Group Meeting #4 August 6, 2025

Agenda • • • •

Updates + Community Debrief Community Engagement Results Concept Plan Discussion Next Steps

Project Timeline We are here!

Initial Input Phase • April – May 2025

Design Alternates Phase • June – July 2025

Concept Plan Phase

Draft Master Plan

Master Plan Adoption

• August – October 2025

• November – December 2025

• January – February 2026

Community Debrief • What has everyone been hearing and learning from their neighborhoods & networks? • What outreach methods seem most effective?

Outreach Methods Survey Data

Community Engagement Results

Design Alternatives Phase Highlights • Online Survey: 182 participants – 64 signed up for email subscriber list!

• Public Meeting: ~20 attendees

Survey Demographics

Which elements would you MOST like to see in the future park? Choose up to three.

Which elements would you LEAST like to see in the future park? Choose up to two.

What type of play do you like the most?

Trail Preferences: Paved vs. Unpaved

Which approach to trail design do you prefer?

Non-Wooded Area Preference

Overall, which concept drawing do you like most?

Concept Plan Discussion

Key Takeaways from Public Input • Play Type Preference: Adventure playground • Trail Preference: Mix of paved & unpaved trails • Development Intensity Preference: Relatively light touch – No neighborhood center

• Open Space Preference: Pollinator meadow

Staff Recommendations • Limited development on east side of the stream – no parking or amenities • Relocate cabin to pecan grove

Discussion: Sports Court • Mixed public input results (#4 high priority, #2 low priority) • Staff Recommendation: Include 1 sports court area – Type of use to be confirmed/ reevaluated when park is developed – Co-locate with playground

Discussion: Trails • Staff Recommendations: – Trails on east side of the stream to be predominantly unpaved – Ensure contiguous paved trail loop – Series of “nodes” along trails, with seating (benches or picnic tables) – Trail through pollinator meadow

Discussion: Parking + Entrance Configuration

Discussion: Adventure Play • What types of activities & elements should we focus on? – – – – –

Treehouses Ziplines Swings Climbing Balancing

• Should natural materials (e.g., wood, rope, etc.) be prioritized?

Next Steps

Project Timeline Initial Input Phase • April – May 2025

Design Alternates Phase • June – July 2025

We are now here!

Concept Plan Phase

Draft Master Plan

Master Plan Adoption

• August – October 2025

• November – December 2025

• January – February 2026

Consensus Voting • Consensus votes will be conducted at 4 milestones: Vote will

– Design Goals occur at the end of this – Draft Concept Plan phase – Priorities for Phased Development – Master Plan Report & Recommendation to PRGAB

• Vote using a five‐point scale to indicate level of support

Upcoming Milestones Midpoint CAG Experience Survey -

Let us know how the CAG process is going so far! Take the short survey here: -

publicinput.com/forestvilleCAGexperience

CAG Meeting 5 - Date: TBA – Mid-September - Location: Marsh Creek Community Center

Questions?

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources

Forestville Road Park Project Updates

Community Advisory Group Meeting #5 September 9, 2025

Agenda • • • •

General Updates Concept Plan Discussion Cabin Discussion Next Steps

Project Timeline We are here!

Initial Input Phase • April – May 2025

Design Alternates Phase • June – July 2025

Concept Plan Phase

Draft Master Plan

Master Plan Adoption

• August – October 2025

• November – December 2025

• January – February 2026

Notable Updates • Potential Property Acquisition – 4925 Forestville Road – 1.5 acres – COR Real Estate ordered appraisal • Expected delivery: Late September

Notable Updates • Structural Assessment of Cabin – Review overall structural integrity & recommend repairs • Immediate term (<1 year) • Medium term (1-5 years) • Long term (5+ years)

– Feasibility of on-site relocation – Opinion of Probable Costs

Concept Plan Discussion

• Open Space Preference: Pollinator meadow

Staff Recommendations • Limited development on east side of the stream – no parking or amenities • Relocate cabin to pecan grove (pending results of structural assessment)

Tiered Entry Plaza Example

Obstacle Course-Style Play

Cabin Discussion: Interpretation or Art

Interpretation Example

Art Examples

Recommended Artist • William Dodge – A Gang of Three

Next Steps

Consensus Voting • Consensus votes will be conducted at 4 milestones: – Design Goals Will occur at – Draft Concept Plan next CAG meeting! – Priorities for Phased Development – Master Plan Report & Recommendation to PRGAB

• Vote using a five‐point scale to indicate level of support

Five-Point Scale Member fully supports the item

Member can live with the item

Member will not support the item

1 - Endorsement

3 - Agreement with Minor Reservations

5 - Block

2 - Endorsement with Minor Point of Contention

4 - Stand Aside with Major Reservations

Member likes the item

Member has a formal disagreement but will not block or hold up the item

Levels of Consensus Consensus All CAG Members rate the item as 1-3 (endorsement, endorsement with minor point of contention, or agreement with minor reservations)

Consensus with Major Reservations At least one CAG Member rates the item as a 4 (stand aside with major reservations)

No Consensus At least one CAG Member rates the item as a 5 (block)

Upcoming Events Public Meeting #3 - Date: Monday, Sept. 22 - Time: 5:30-7:30pm - Location: Marsh Creek Community Center

Online Survey -

Live September 22 – October 6 Will be posted on project webpage & engagement portal

Reminder Midpoint CAG Experience Survey -

Let us know how the CAG process is going so far! Take the short survey here: -

publicinput.com/forestvilleCAGexperience

Project Timeline We are here!

Initial Input Phase • April – May 2025

Design Alternates Phase • June – July 2025

Concept Plan Phase

Draft Master Plan

Master Plan Adoption

• August – October 2025

• November – December 2025

• January – February 2026

Questions?

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources

Forestville Road Park Project Updates CAG Meeting 6 December 2, 2025

Agenda • • • • •

Project Updates Community Engagement Recap Final Concept Plan Review Phasing Discussion Next Steps

Project Timeline Initial Input Phase • April – May 2025

Design Alternates Phase • June – July 2025

We are here!

Concept Plan Phase

Draft Master Plan

Master Plan Adoption

• August – October 2025 • August November 2025

• November – December 2025 • December 2025 – January 2026

• January – February 2026 • February – March 2026

Property Acquisition • We will not be proceeding with the acquisition, due to insufficient funding • Appraisal valuation was $340,000 • Property owners have been notified that we are no longer interested in pursuing this property

Structural Assessment • Cabin Stabilization – Estimated cost: $25,000 – Stabilization repairs should occur within ~1 year (by end of 2026) – Estimated ~20 year "remaining usable life", if stabilization repairs are completed

Community Engagement Results

Concept Plan Phase Highlights • Online Survey: 64 participants – 24 signed up for email subscriber list

• Public Meeting: 7 attendees

Survey Demographics

Do you support the proposed design of Forestville Road Park?

Final Concept Plan

Key Updates • Final Concept Plan – Will remain as proposed in Concept Plan Phase – Adjusted pedestrian connection location – Restroom building to have canopy area with picnic tables – Cabin will be relocated and reinterpreted* • Pending CAG discussion

Cabin Reinterpretation

Phasing Discussion

Paved Trails

Unpaved Trails

Adventure Playground

Sport Court

Cabin Interpretive Art

Pollinator Meadow

GSI Features

Picnic Grove

Restroom Building

Priority Tier 2

Priority Tier 1

Priorities for Phased Development

Development Agreement Funding Options •

Use ~$25,000 to stabilize the cabin

•

Option 1 – Use remaining funding to advance concept into design, to be ready for permitting and construction when funding is available

•

Option 2 – Use remaining funding for interim site activation (gravel parking lot, natural surface trails, and limited interpretive signage)

Next Steps

Consensus Voting • Consensus votes will be conducted at 4 milestones: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Design Goals Today's Draft Concept Plan votes! Priorities for Phased Development Final Master Plan Report & Recommendation to PRGAB

• Vote using a five‐point scale to indicate level of support

Five-Point Scale Member fully supports the item

Member can live with the item

Member will not support the item

1 - Endorsement

3 - Agreement with Minor Reservations

5 - Block

2 - Endorsement with Minor Point of Contention

4 - Stand Aside with Major Reservations

Member likes the item

Member has a formal disagreement but will not block or hold up the item

Levels of Consensus Consensus All CAG Members rate the item as 1-3 (endorsement, endorsement with minor point of contention, or agreement with minor reservations)

Consensus with Major Reservations At least one CAG Member rates the item as a 4 (stand aside with major reservations)

No Consensus At least one CAG Member rates the item as a 5 (block)

Consensus Vote Includes votes on: - Concept Plan - Priorities for Phased Development - Date for final CAG meeting

Please complete the survey by the end of day Friday (12/5)! https://forms.office.com/g/1rqx6xgSqp

Upcoming Events CAG Meeting 7 + Celebration - Date: Third Week of January -

Tuesday, 1/20 Wednesday, 1/21 Thursday, 1/22 Vote on your preference in the consensus vote survey!

- Time: 5:30-7:30pm - Location: Marsh Creek Community Center - Dinner will be provided!

Questions?

Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources

Forestville Road Park Project Updates CAG Meeting 7 January 21, 2026

Agenda • • • • •

Project Updates Master Plan Report Review Upcoming Milestones Next Steps Celebration!!!

Project Updates

Project Timeline

Initial Input Phase • April – May 2025

Design Alternates Phase • June – July 2025

We are here!

Concept Plan Phase

Draft Master Plan

Master Plan Adoption

• August November 2025

• December 2025 – January 2026

• February – March 2026

Development Agreement Funding Recommendation •

$50,000-$100,000 for Stabilization – Cabin repairs – Security & cleanup – Interim stormwater mitigation & erosion control

•

$500,000-$550,000 for Schematic Design – Advance concept into design and construction drawings – Goal: Be ready for permitting and construction when funding is available

Previous Consensus Vote Results

Priority Tier 1

Paved Trails

Unpaved Trails

Adventure Playground

Sport Court

Cabin Interpretive Art GSI Features Restroom Building

Pollinator Meadow Picnic Grove

Priority Tier 2

Previous Consensus Vote Results

Master Plan Report Review

Clarity • Is everything clear & digestible for general community members? • Are any visuals confusing or the wrong size? • Any other legibility concerns?

Content • Is anything missing from the report? • Does anything seem incorrect/inaccurate? • Any remaining questions?

Upcoming Milestones

Project Timeline

Initial Input Phase • April – May 2025

Design Alternates Phase • June – July 2025

We are here!

Concept Plan Phase

Draft Master Plan

Master Plan Adoption

• August November 2025

• December 2025 – January 2026

• February – March 2026

Upcoming Milestones Parks Committee -

February 5, 6 p.m. Raleigh Municipal Building – Conference Rm 303

Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board -

February 19, 6 p.m. Raleigh Municipal Building – Council Chambers Is anyone interested in presenting with staff?

City Council -

March – date/time TBD Raleigh Municipal Building – Council Chambers

Note: All of these meetings are open to the public – you’re welcome to attend to speak in support of Forestville Road Park!

Next Steps

Consensus Voting • Consensus votes will be conducted at 4 milestones: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Design Goals Today's vote! Draft Concept Plan Priorities for Phased Development Final Master Plan Report & Recommendation to PRGAB

• Vote using a five‐point scale to indicate level of support

Five-Point Scale Member fully supports the item

Member can live with the item

Member will not support the item

1 - Endorsement

3 - Agreement with Minor Reservations

5 - Block

2 - Endorsement with Minor Point of Contention

4 - Stand Aside with Major Reservations

Member likes the item

Member has a formal disagreement but will not block or hold up the item

Levels of Consensus Consensus All CAG Members rate the item as 1-3 (endorsement, endorsement with minor point of contention, or agreement with minor reservations)

Consensus with Major Reservations At least one CAG Member rates the item as a 4 (stand aside with major reservations)

No Consensus At least one CAG Member rates the item as a 5 (block)

Consensus Vote Please complete the survey by end of day Friday (1/23)! Will also include question to indicate interest in Parks Board presentation participation.

Note: If consensus is not reached, an optional Teams meeting will be set up for next week, to discuss concerns/changes.

Link to Survey:

https://forms.office.com/g/pUqxDz6xxf

Endpoint CAG Experience Survey Let us know how the CAG process went! Your anonymous feedback will help us continue to improve the CAG experience for future projects!

Take the short survey here: publicinput.com/forestvilleendpoint

Questions?

SURPRISE! The Forestville Road Park CAG has been nominated for a Fred Fletcher Outstanding Volunteer Award. We’ll be in touch with more information about the award ceremony if you win!

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix E: CAG Consensus Vote Results

1/23/26, 6:40 PM

Forestville Road Park CAG - Design Goals Consensus Vote

Responses Overview

Active

Responses

Average Time

Duration

10:10

256 Days

1. Name:

Latest Responses

"Taylar Flythe"

"Lauren Neville Smith"

Responses

"Brian Ellis" ...

2. Please indicate your level of support for the Design Goals below:

Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement with minor point of contention Member likes the item Agreement with minor reservations - Member can live with the item Stand aside with major reservations - Member has a formal disagreement but will not block or hold up… Block - Member will not support the item

11 3 1 0 0

3. If you would like to elaborate on your vote, please do so here:

7 Responses

Latest Responses

"The language in the Honor History section could benefit from a slight revision for… " ...

https://forms.office.com/Pages/DesignPageV2.aspx?origin=NeoPortalPage&subpage=design&id=RuE68EXZJEmVwHtmHDDduzmoAQDqsV1PpTpS…

1/2

Name: 2 Roger Montague 3 Kevin Lewis 4 Maria Fadri 5 Bob Edgerton 6 Kim Davis 7 Sarah Jackson 8 Mikayla Posey 9 Sharmaine Walker 10 Iain Burnett

11 Diya Patel 12 Leah Weaver 13 Andrew Stephenson

Please indicate your level of support for the Design If you would like to elaborate on your vote, please do so here: Goals below: Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Well crafted design goals. I look forward to helping make it a reality. Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Covers and acknowledges those who have inhabited the area. Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement with minor point of contention - Member I love and fully endorse the carefully and mindfully crafted wording. My one minor "contention" is that I had wished to see likes the item specific language about the defense and protection of the stream, but I hope and believe that this is a given understanding. Endorsement with minor point of contention - Member likes the item Nice! I am in full agreement with language and purpose of the 4 design goals. It’s clear how each theme leads focus with broad Endorsement - Member fully supports the item enough descriptions for hammering out specifics later. I expect preferences and feasibility to narrow in the next phases, hopefully as a not too bold challenge for the advisory group(s) to meet on consensus. Endorsement with minor point of contention - Member Inspire Play is the most appropriate section to mention pathways and trails (this isn't mentioned anywhere). I think the best likes the item place to add it is "through thoughtfully design play spaces and pathways that nurture..." I really like all of the ideas talked about, and was thinking of some ways to incorporate them into the park. I think it's crucial to maintain the biodiversity when constructing a park because typically when large-scale construction happens, it affects many Endorsement - Member fully supports the item animals in the area. For play spaces I was thinking maybe there could be scavenger hunts along hidden pathways, something fun but also nature related that can get kids to enjoy nature. Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement - Member fully supports the item The language in the Honor History section could benefit from a slight revision for clarity and historical accuracy. The current phrase: “African American individuals and families who lived and labored here”

14 Brian Ellis

15 Lauren Neville Smith 17 Taylar Flythe

Agreement with minor reservations - Member can live with the item

Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement - Member fully supports the item

Suggested refinement: “…the African and African American individuals and families, many of whom were enslaved, who lived and labored here as part of a 600-acre plantation…” This adjustment is important because the original phrasing could unintentionally imply ambiguity. Not all laborers on plantations were enslaved, and the term African American generally refers to U.S.-born individuals of African descent. Including African acknowledges those who were brought directly from Africa and whose descendants later became African American. The initial enslaved family on this plantation was not born into slavery if I'm not mistaken, so adding this nuance honors that full historical context.

1/23/26, 6:33 PM

Forestville Road Park CAG - Consensus Votes

Responses Overview

Closed

Responses

Average Time

Duration

82:08

65 Days

1. Name:

Latest Responses

"Jenny Harper"

"Diya Patel"

Responses

"Kevin Lewis" ...

2. Please indicate your level of support for the Concept Plan below:

9 4 1 0 0

3. If you would like to elaborate on your vote, please do so here:

7 Responses

Latest Responses

"I'm overjoyed with how well this plan turned out - kudos to the planning team. F… " ...

4. Please indicate your level of support for the prioritization below:

11 1 2 0 0

https://forms.office.com/Pages/DesignPageV2.aspx?origin=NeoPortalPage&subpage=design&id=RuE68EXZJEmVwHtmHDDduzmoAQDqsV1PpTpS…

1/2

1/23/26, 6:33 PM

Forestville Road Park CAG - Consensus Votes

5. If you would like to elaborate on your vote, please do so here:

5 Responses

Latest Responses

"I agree with Priority Tier 1, but I think it would be very beautiful to see a pollinato… " ...

6. What date(s) work for you for our final CAG meeting & celebration? (Choose all that apply)

Tuesday, January 20

Wednesday, January 21

Thursday, January 22

I am not available any of these dates :(

https://forms.office.com/Pages/DesignPageV2.aspx?origin=NeoPortalPage&subpage=design&id=RuE68EXZJEmVwHtmHDDduzmoAQDqsV1PpTpS…

2/2

Please indicate your level of If you would like to elaborate on your vote, please do so here: 2 support for the prioritization Agreement with minor reservations 1 Sharmaine Walker Member can live with the item Endorsement - Member fully 2 Taylar Flythe supports the item I've mentioned this before. Hopefully before any tree is cut that a professional (not the It has my full endorsement. Hopefully more proactive measures group that misidentified the trees) do a simple study of what trees out there may be Endorsement - Member fully will be taken to deal with the existential threat from the Endorsement - Member fully 3 Roger Montague significant from a legacy standpoint. For instance, the huge Mulberry tree near the cabin supports the item stormwater issues from the Solis structure and the new supports the item may be a "pure" mulberry while most that are found now are some sort of hybrids. development to the east. Determine the ages of the pecan trees. I think there may be other significant trees that Endorsement with minor point of Endorsement with minor point of 4 Maria Theresa Morato Fadri contention - Member likes the item contention - Member likes the item Endorsement with minor point of Not a huge fan of the unpaved trails, as this limits where I can Endorsement - Member fully 5 Andrew Stephenson The trails and playground will be the top attraction of the park contention - Member likes the item push a stroller. supports the item Endorsement - Member fully Endorsement - Member fully 6 Kim Davis supports the item supports the item Endorsement - Member fully Endorsement - Member fully 7 Leah Weaver supports the item supports the item So far so good. Future will see some adjustments based on Agreement with minor reservations - funding and development in the area. If log house does get Agreement with minor reservations 8 Bob Edgerton Expect there will be a good nuber of adjustments. Member can live with the item moved chimney will be difficult and costly. For now a good start Member can live with the item that I can support on the Board. I recognize that we did the best we could to make this park accessible and attractive to all types of human people. I also Endorsement with minor point of Endorsement - Member fully 9 Sarah Jackson know that, as a group, we did not make an effort to do the same contention - Member likes the item supports the item for -or equitably consider- the voices of our other-than-human Name:

10 Brian Ellis

11 Iain Burnett

12 Kevin Lewis 13 Diya Patel

14 Jenny Harper

Please indicate your level of support for the Concept Plan Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement - Member fully supports the item

If you would like to elaborate on your vote, please do so here:

kin as equals. This is my point of contention. These are minor contentions and not huge. But, I would have Endorsement with minor point of liked to have paved trails for the full loop of the path. And, Endorsement - Member fully contention - Member likes the item potentially doing less with the cabin and utilizing the budget supports the item elsewhere however the plan for the cabin is great. I think this is a good layout and appreciate one paved creekside trail. I'm very excited to see what sort of adventure play design is ultimately picked but the size of it seems good, and appreciate it being between mature trees for shade; if you need to give up Endorsement - Member fully Endorsement - Member fully a tiny amount of play area on the north side to give it summer supports the item supports the item shade by preserving another few trees, please do so. If the city ever moves ahead with land acquisition of the corner lot it is well placed near utilities and parking for further development to meet future needs. Endorsement - Member fully Endorsement - Member fully supports the item supports the item Endorsement - Member fully Endorsement - Member fully supports the item supports the item I'm overjoyed with how well this plan turned out - kudos to the planning team. For such a small site, it does an exceptional job Endorsement - Member fully of honoring its history through (what is hopefully) the thoughtful Endorsement - Member fully supports the item retention and rehabilitation of the cabin, while fully embracing supports the item the property’s unique natural features. This park will be a wonderful community amenity, and I’m excited to watch it take

What date(s) work for you for our final CAG meeting & celebration? (Choose all that apply) Tuesday, January 20; Wednesday, January 21;Thursday, January 22;

Tuesday, January 20;Wednesday, January 21;Thursday, January 22; Tuesday, January 20;Wednesday, January 21;Thursday, January 22; Wednesday, January 21;Tuesday, January 20; I am not available any of these dates :(; Tuesday, January 20;Wednesday, January 21; Tuesday, January 20;Wednesday, January 21;Thursday, January 22;

Wednesday, January 21;

Tuesday, January 20;Wednesday, January 21;

I read this as Paved Trails is #1 in Tier 1, and Restroom Building is #5 in Tier 1; likewise, Unpaved Trails is #1 in Tier 2, and Picnic Grove is #4 in Tier 2. I'm not sure if this needs to be clarified for the final master plan, but may be useful in case there is budget for one or two items in Tier 2.

Tuesday, January 20;Wednesday, January 21;Thursday, January 22;

Thursday, January 22; I agree with Priority Tier 1, but I think it would be very beautiful to see a pollinator meadow incorporated into the design (more prioritized)!

Wednesday, January 21;

Tuesday, January 20;Thursday, January 22;

2/4/26, 1:29 PM

Microsoft Forms

Responses Overview

Active

Responses

Average Time

Duration

02:36

19 Days

1. Name:

Latest Responses

"Maria Fadri"

"Leah Weaver"

Responses

"Sarah Jackson" ...

2. Please indicate your level of support for the Master Plan Report below:

9 2 2 1 0

3. If you would like to elaborate on your vote, please do so here:

Latest Responses

Responses

...

4. Are you interested in assisting staff in presenting the Master Plan to the Parks Board on February 19?

Yes, definitely!

No, thank you!

https://forms.office.com/Pages/DesignPageV2.aspx?origin=NeoPortalPage&subpage=design&id=RuE68EXZJEmVwHtmHDDduzmoAQDqsV1PpTpS…

1/2

Name:

Please indicate your level of support for the Master Plan Report below:

1 Taylar Flythe 2 Andrew Stephenson

Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement - Member fully supports the item

3 Iain Burnett

Endorsement with minor point of contention Member likes the item

If you would like to elaborate on your vote, please do so here:

1) The restroom building and picnic shelter "should be situated with easy access and clear sightlines to the play area". Easy access to the parking lot, food truck spots, and sports courts are relatively unimportant and don't need to be mentioned. Kids play for a long time and parents want a comfortable place to sit while being able to keep an eye on their kids (and likewise, young kids want to be able to see their parents). These two items are just for clarity: 2) The arrows under "Prioritization" are confusing - just label the two sides "Priority Tier 1" and "Priority Tier 2" to show they are buckets rather than a list that the arrows imply.

Are you interested in assisting staff in presenting the Master Plan to the Parks Board on February 19? No, thank you! Yes, definitely!

No, thank you!

3) For clarity, put the Final Master Plan up front, right after the Executive Summary (or in place of it). It is relatively short and better to anchor people with the end design and then go on to explain how that was reached.

4 Roger Montague 5 Kim Davis 6 Brian Ellis 7 Diya Patel 8 Kevin 9 Bob Edgerton 10 Sharmaine Walker 11 Mikayla 12 Sarah Jackson 13 Leah Weaver 14 Maria Fadri

Great job! Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Agreement with minor reservations - Member can I am disappointed we could not keep the cabin. I understand why and like the proposed historical area, but still not my live with the item preference. Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Agreement with minor reservations - Member can Thank you for a great effort by all. live with the item Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement with minor point of contention Member likes the item Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Endorsement - Member fully supports the item Stand aside with major reservations - Member has a formal disagreement but will not block or hold up the item

Yes, definitely! No, thank you! Yes, definitely! No, thank you! No, thank you! No, thank you! No, thank you! Yes, definitely! No, thank you! Yes, definitely! No, thank you!

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix F: CAG Experience Survey Results

1/23/26, 6:27 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Forestville Road Park CAG Participation Experience Survey Project Engagement VIEWS

PARTICIPANTS

RESPONSES

COMMENTS

SUBSCRIBERS

277

229

When you first joined the Community Advisory Group (CAG), did Raleigh Parks staff talk with you about the role of the CAG in the park planning process?

100% Yes 11 respondents

We want to know your thoughts about the CAG meeting schedule. Please indicate how convenient each of the following choices were for you. Meeting day of the week

18%

36%

45%

Never convenient

Sometimes convenient

Usually convenient

Always convenient

18%

36%

45%

Never convenient

Sometimes convenient

Usually convenient

Always convenient

18%

73%

Never convenient

Sometimes convenient

Usually convenient

Always convenient

Meeting time of day

Meeting location

11 responses

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36343

1/11

1/23/26, 6:27 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

In your time as a CAG member, did you have the opportunity to participate in a project site visit? 64

Yes

% 27 %

Yes, but I was unable to attend

9% No 0% Don't know

11 respondents

Has being a CAG member provided you with personal fulfillment, purpose, or satisfaction? 9% Don't know 9% No

82% Yes 11 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36343

2/11

1/23/26, 6:27 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

When you first joined the CAG, did Raleigh Parks staff do a good job of explaining the overall project timeline for the Forestville Road Park Project?

100% Yes 11 respondents

When you first joined the CAG, did Raleigh Parks staff do a good job of explaining your overall commitment timeline for CAG participation in the Forestville Road Park Project?

100% Yes 11 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36343

3/11

1/23/26, 6:27 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Thinking about recent CAG meetings you have attended, how often did Raleigh Parks staff seem informed and up to date about the development possibilities for the Forestville Road Park Project? 9% Usually

91% Always 11 respondents

Thinking about recent CAG meetings you have attended, how often did Raleigh Parks staff seem informed and up to date about the needs and desires of your community for the Forestville Road Park Project? 9% Don't know

27% Usually

64% Always

11 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36343

4/11

1/23/26, 6:27 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

How often did Raleigh Parks staff keep you informed about next steps for the Forestville Road Park Project? 9% Usually

91% Always 11 respondents

Thinking about recent CAG meetings you have attended, how often did Raleigh Parks staff explain technical information or language in a way that made it easier for you to understand? 9% Usually

91% Always 11 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36343

5/11

1/23/26, 6:27 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

How often did Raleigh Parks staff listen carefully to you? 9% Usually

91% Always 11 respondents

How often did Raleigh Parks staff treat you with courtesy and respect?

100% Always 11 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36343

6/11

1/23/26, 6:27 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

How often did Raleigh Parks staff help you feel appreciated as a CAG member?

100% Always 11 respondents

Did you ever email Raleigh Parks staff to get help or advice about the Forestville Park Project or your role as a CAG member?

42% Yes

58% No

12 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36343

7/11

1/23/26, 6:27 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

When you contacted Raleigh Parks staff, did you get the help or advice you needed?

100% Yes 4 respondents

When you contacted Raleigh Parks staff, how long did it take for you to get the help or advice you needed? 50 %

Same day

1 to 5 days

% 0% Others

4 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36343

8/11

1/23/26, 6:27 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Would you recommend participating in a Raleigh Parks Community Advisory Group to your family or friends if they were interested in a future project? 82

Definitely yes

% 18 %

Probably yes

0% Others

11 respondents

In general, how would you rate your overall experience participating in the Forestville Road Park Project Community Advisory Group?

45% Very good 55% Excellent

11 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36343

9/11

1/23/26, 6:27 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

In general, how would you rate your experience working with other CAG members? 9% Good

36% Excellent

55% Very Good

11 respondents

In general, how would you rate your experience working with Raleigh Parks staff on this project?

18% Very good

82% Excellent 11 respondents

Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as a Community Advisory Group member?

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36343

10/11

1/23/26, 6:27 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Nope, I loved this group! My only feedback is it would have been nice to know the meeting dates the previous month or a little before for submitting my work schedule to make sure I could be there. 8/15/2025

Not at this time 8/9/2025

I think Parks is doing a great job with incorporating changes, but could improve in two regards. If recommending against a design idea, a discussion of the costs and challenges of putting that idea into the Master Plan should be had, without completely shutting the door on it in case its important to the community. Second, as the design progresses, share which community ideas made it in and which were prompted by Parks staff or the design team. 8/7/2025

As someone in favor of a park that has more community amenities it feels harder to speak up in meetings because the voices wanting to conserve nature as much as possible are very vocal. 8/7/2025

Working with staff to get this wonderful project off the ground has been a delight. I greatly appreciate their dedication, sensitivity, and continued efforts towards making our city even better - a truly awesome team! 8/6/2025

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36343

11/11

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix G: Online Survey Results

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Forestville Road Park Initial Input Survey - Working Project Engagement VIEWS

PARTICIPANTS

RESPONSES

COMMENTS

SUBSCRIBERS

500

155

2,718

123

How would you and your family get to Forestville Road Park? 88%

Vehicle

126 

35%

Walk

50 

31%

Bike

44 

Public Transportation

2 

Other

0 

144 Respondents

 

Filtered by Date

All participants

What local park(s) do you and your household members visit regularly? 58%

Knightdale Community Park

82 

50%

Buffaloe Road Athletic Park/Aquatic Center

71 

32%

Horseshoe Farm Nature Preserve

45 

23%

Other

33 

19%

River Bend Park

27 

15%

Spring Forest Road Park

21 

Marsh Creek Park

13 

We do not currently visit public parks

10 

141 Respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

1/12

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

I would like to see some tennis courts at the new park 2 months ago

Rolesville park,Durant Rd. park 2 months ago

Poll Questions 'Other' Responses: Rolesville Park 2 months ago

Mill bridge park 2 months ago

Knightdale Station 2 months ago

Wilkinson, Fletcher, Kiwanis 2 months ago

We also like Sassafras a lot. Definitely fenced in play areas and rubberized surfaces are a must. 3 months ago

Harper Park 3 months ago

Sassafras 3 months ago

I would like to see a basketball court or a pump track. A public mini golf course would be great too. Every park offers the same typical amenities and I feel like there needs to be variety in future park designs. Also, I live a half mile from this location and I’m looking forward to enjoying it with my kids. 3 months ago

forest ridge park 3 months ago

Forest Ridge, Laurel Hills 3 months ago

Joyner Park, Mill Bridge Park 3 months ago

Durant Road Nature Preserve 3 months ago

We really want a dog park! (grass, or mulch) 3 months ago

We w really would love a dog park that has grass or mulch !! 3 months ago

https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

2/12

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Rolesville park 3 months ago

Rolesville Park 3 months ago

Would love to be able to easily get to the Neuse River Greenway, but have to drive to get there. If there were a walkable/bikeable connection, we would probably use it. 3 months ago

Joyner 3 months ago

Shelly lake 3 months ago

Durant 3 months ago

Millbrook exchange park 3 months ago

Apex pleasant park 3 months ago

Durant 3 months ago

Mingo Creek Park 3 months ago

Turnipseed Nature Preserve, Robertson Millpond, Umstead, Mingo Creek, Falls Dam, Eno River SP, Annie Louise Wilkerson, Brookhaven nature park, Bailey and Sarah Williamson preserve, Sandy Pines 3 months ago

https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

3/12

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Which types of amenities would you and your household members be most likely to use at Forestville Road Park?

66%

Restrooms

97 

52%

Picnic Areas / Shelters

77 

52%

Sport court(s) (e.g., tennis, pickleball, basketball)

77 

48%

Paved Walking Trails

71 

40%

Traditional Playground

59 

32%

Nature Playground

47 

32%

Field or lawn for flexible use

47 

30%

Unpaved Walking / Hiking Trails

44 

25%

Community Garden

37 

22%

Outdoor games (e.g., bocce, horseshoe, etc.)

32 

18%

Outdoor Fitness Stations

26 

14%

Other (please describe)

20 

12%

Mountain Bike Trails

17 

12%

Unstaffed Neighborhood Gathering Space

17 

11%

Disc Golf

16 

147 Respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

4/12

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

The Forestville Road Park property has a long and complex history — including its past as part of a 600-acre plantation. How would you like to see the history of the site acknowledged or explored?

68%

Educational signs throughout the park

99 

66%

A "history walk" with trail markers or displays

96 

48%

Public art that reflects the site's history

70 

20%

Indoor or outdoor exhibit space

29 

17%

Outdoor classroom or gathering space for history-based programs

25 

Other (please describe)

1 

146 Respondents

Art 3 months ago

 2 Agree

Agree 👍 3 months ago

Educational signs explaining the history of the site 2 months ago

2 months ago

Markers with history info. 3 months ago

Trail markers or art 3 months ago

It is important to honor acknowledge the enslaved people of that land. 3 months ago

There must be art. 3 months ago

https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

5/12

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Help us come up with creative ideas for Forestville Road Park! What words come to mind when you imagine the future park? Can you think of something special you would love to see here, but can't find at other parks in the area? Do you have an imaginative concept for a new park feature?

native plants

inclusive 2

Where do you live? Move the circle to show the general area by dragging the map.

2 103 2

https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

6/12

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

What is your ZIP code?

What is your age? 42

35 - 44

% 27 %

25 - 34

45 - 54

% 12

55 - 64

% 7% Over 65 0% Others

67 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

7/12

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

What is your gender identity? 1% Non-binary

34% Male

64% Female

67 respondents

What is your ethnic identification? 95

Non-Hispanic

% 5% Hispanic

66 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

8/12

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

What is your racial identity? (Please select all that apply.)

80%

White

51 

19%

Black/African American

12 

American Indian/Alaskan Native

1 

Asian

1 

Latino/a/e/x

1 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

0 

64 Respondents

What is your marital status? 88

Married or Domestic Partnership

% 5% Never Married 3% Separated 3% Divorced 2% Widowed

64 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

9/12

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Do you identify as person with a disability? 8% Yes

92% No 65 respondents

What is your highest formal education level? 42

Bachelor's Degree

% 30 %

Graduate or Professional Degree

Associate's Degree

% 9% Some College 5% High School/GED 0% Less than High School/GED

64 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

10/12

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

What is your current employment status? Please select all that apply.

65%

Employed full-time (40 or more hours per week)

41 

13%

Stay-at-home partner/caregiver

8 

10%

Self-employed

6 

10%

Retired

6 

Employed part-time (up to 39 hours per week)

4 

Unemployed and currently looking for work

3 

Student

2 

Unemployed and not currently looking for work

0 

Unable to work

0 

63 Respondents

What is your approximate household income? 32

$100,000 to $149,999

% 22 %

$150,000 to $199,999

$200,000 or more

% 13

$75,000 to $99,999

% 10 %

$50,000 to $74,999

3% Others

60 respondents

Do you rent or own your home?

95%

Own

59 

Rent

2 

Neither

2 

62 Respondents https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

11/12

8/6/25, 12:51 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

I speak English as my first language. 97% 3%

Yes

61 

2 

63 Respondents

How did you hear about this survey? 31%

Social media

19 

27%

Word of mouth

17 

18%

City of Raleigh website

11 

13%

8 

13%

Yard sign

8 

By mail / postcard

2 

Handout / doorhanger

1 

62 Respondents

If you would like to receive email updates on the Forestville Road Park planning process, please enter your email: No data to display...

https://publicinput.com/report?id=34598

12/12

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Forestville Road Park Survey - Public Input on Design Project Engagement VIEWS

PARTICIPANTS

RESPONSES

COMMENTS

SUBSCRIBERS

525

182

3,982

221

Three MOST Important Features Below are some popular park elements. Please consider which elements you would MOST like to see in the future park. 62%

Conservation of Natural Elements (Trees, Boulders, Streams, Wildlife)

Rank: 1.79

104 

46%

Playground Area

Rank: 1.79

76 

34%

Sports Courts

Rank: 1.82

56 

75%

Trails (Paved and Unpaved)

Rank: 1.86

125 

18%

Historic Cabin with Interpretive Signage

Rank: 2.23

30 

Rank: 2.36

11 

Neighborhood Center (unstaffed)

27%

Open Field / Pollinator Meadow / Memorial Garden

Rank: 2.49

45 

22%

Picnic Area

Rank: 2.59

37 

167 Respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

1/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Thank you for your thoughtful selection. We want to know more about your thoughts on sports courts, since this was a highly ranked item for you. 80%

Pickleball

Rank: 1.74

39 

57%

Basketball

Rank: 1.89

28 

49%

Sand Volleyball

Rank: 2.29

24 

57%

Tennis

Rank: 2.46

28 

29%

Futsal (soccer)

Rank: 2.93

14 

27%

Other

Rank: 3.46

13 

22%

Badminton

Rank: 3.64

11 

49 Respondents

You selected "Other" for type of sport court - please tell us what you have in mind in the space below. Hand ball court 3 days ago

Track 5 days ago

Horseshoe 6 days ago

Cornhole, horseshoe 6 days ago

Baseball Field 7 days ago

Baseball batting cage 7 days ago

Baseball/Softball nets 13 days ago

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

2/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Exercises faculty 14 days ago

track 15 days ago

Thank you for your thoughtful selection. We want to know more about your thoughts on playground areas, since this was a highly ranked item for you. 59 %

Adventure Play

Traditional Play

% 10

Nature Play

63 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

3/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Thank you for your thoughtful selection. We want to know more about your thoughts on trails (paved and unpaved), since this was a highly ranked item for you. Do you prefer to use paved or unpaved trails? 13% Paved

56% Both

32% Unpaved

104 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

4/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

You selected that you would prefer both paved and unpaved trails. We would like to know how you would like to use each trail type: Walking with pets

Walking with children on foot

Walking with children in strollers

Running or jogging

Mountain biking

Cycling

Nature or bird watching

Motorized wheelchairs or scooters

Skating

42%

58%

Paved

Unpaved

58%

42%

Paved

Unpaved

100%

Paved

Unpaved

63%

37%

Paved

Unpaved

11%

89%

Paved

Unpaved

89%

11%

Paved

Unpaved

23%

77%

Paved

Unpaved

98%

Paved

Unpaved

97%

Paved

Unpaved

71 responses

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

5/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Thank you for your thoughtful selection. We want to know more about your thoughts on a neighborhood center (unstaffed), since this was a highly ranked item for you. What activities would you most like to use this space for? 100%

Event Rentals (ex. birthday parties, reunions)

9 

89%

Meeting Rooms

8 

89%

Fitness Classes

8 

33%

Other

3 

22%

Warming Kitchen

2 

22%

Nature Education

2 

11%

History Education

1 

9 Respondents

You selected "Other" for neighborhood center (unstaffed) use - please tell us what you have in mind in the space below. Indoor Dance/Gym Studio 7 days ago

Indoor Public Gym 7 days ago

Indoor Basketball Courts 7 days ago

Indoor walking trail if 2 levels or Gym 7 days ago

Board game library, tool rentals, food pantry, rentable kids lemonade stand, rentable foldable table and chairs, lawn games, ect. 14 days ago

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

6/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Thank you for your thoughtful selection. We want to know more about your thoughts on an open field / pollinator meadow / memorial garden, since this was a highly ranked item for you. Which type of non-wooded area would you prefer? 66 %

Pollinator Meadow

Open Lawn / Multipurpose Play Field

% 3% Historic Memorial Garden

38 respondents

Two LEAST Important Features Below are some popular park elements. Please consider which elements are LEAST important to you in the future park, and select up to 2. 3%

Trails (Paved and Unpaved)

Rank: 1.20

5 

19%

Playground Area

Rank: 1.30

30 

39%

Sports Courts

Rank: 1.37

62 

Rank: 1.38

13 

Conservation of Natural Elements (Trees, Boulders, Streams, Wildlife)

38%

Historic Cabin with Interpretive Signage

Rank: 1.44

61 

18%

Open Field / Pollinator Meadow / Memorial Garden

Rank: 1.46

28 

13%

Picnic Area

Rank: 1.62

21 

55%

Neighborhood Center (unstaffed)

Rank: 1.65

88 

159 Respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

7/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Please let us know why you selected these two features as the least important park elements. Nearby Buffalo Road Aquatic & Athletic Park, and Marsh Creek CC Park offers sports fields. Since the proposed Forestville Park is relatively small at approximately 25 acres and we cannot fit every element, we wish. An experience of unique design elements may be a better fit for the natural landscape, instead of duplicating elements offered at other parks. I envision the future Forestville Park as space that offers a relaxing respite from city noise pollution, where community can be immersed in a nature setting close to home. 15 days ago

 1 Agree

Nice to have seating area for eating yesterday

I don’t see people using a neighborhood center and constructing it would use a lot of available funding. yesterday

My property, a working horse boarding and training facility, abuts the proposed park. I have concerns about high foot traffic near the farm. yesterday

We need more natural areas, especially in light of all the development and tree removal. Habitat for wildlife and a chance for people to distress and relax in nature. The town has other recreational sports courts. Unstaffed neighborhood center could invite trouble. 2 days ago

Overall, which concept drawing do you like the most?

22% Concept B

45% Concept C

34% Concept A

155 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

8/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Thank you for letting us know that you like Concept A the most. Please let us know why you picked this drawing. With so many new builds there is a lot of deforestation happening. The less forage and wildlife removal we could do the better. yesterday

I’m interested in the least amount of disruption of natural features. yesterday

Green space is important for creativity & mental health 2 days ago

Best fits with my top priorities of preserving nature (and this was are echoed by others in the survey choices at the beginning of the survey. Options B and C do not do that. 2 days ago

More unpaved trails. 5 days ago

Thank you for letting us know that you like Concept B the most. Please let us know why you picked this drawing. Picke 3 days ago

It was very hard to choose. I like the amount of paved trail, the open space for general usage and no neighborhood center. Also like not having the back of the park so over used like in (C) and keeping the bathrooms and kids area at the front entrance of the park. 3 days ago

I prefer it honor history because I live nearby. 7 days ago

pickleball courts 7 days ago

I like more paved trails especially if this connects to the Raleigh Greenway. Paved is very beneficial for wheelchairs, strollers and elderly in the community. 2 sport areas would be great. 8 days ago

Thank you for letting us know that you like Concept C the most. Please let us know why you picked this drawing. https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

9/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Looks to appeal to many different needs of the community. 14 days ago

 1 Agree

I like the goal of fostering community. I also think having a community garden is a great idea! 14 days ago

 1 Agree

Two play grounds, paved trails 15 days ago

 1 Agree

Mostly emphasizes community engagement and provides additional places for kids to play, especially since this area is so family friendly. yesterday

I selected design C because its layout places key amenities along the side of the property that’s closest to nearby neighborhoods, making them easily walkable. It also features play areas tailored to various age groups and includes a sports court. This configuration offers the highest level of accessibility for families with strollers and individuals with disabilities. Overall, I’m drawn to this option because it supports multiple uses and creates a park experience with something for everyone in the community. yesterday

We would like to know your preference for access to paved and unpaved trails. In Concept A, the majority of the trails are unpaved (shaded brown), and in Concepts B & C, the majority of the trails are paved (shaded gray) with unpaved trails along the sides of the stream. Which approach to trail design do you prefer? 55

Concepts B & C

% 45 %

Concept A

146 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

10/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

The location of some elements are shown differently in the 3 concept drawings. For each item below, which drawing do you like the most: Location of play areas (shaded orange)

36%

31%

32%

Concept A

Concept B

Concept C

Location of sports courts (shaded bright blue)

30%

35%

Concept A

Concept B

Concept C

Location of cabin (shaded purple)

35%

24%

41%

Concept A

Concept B

Concept C

160 responses

If you have any additional comments for the design team, please share them here! yesterday

Natural seating areas & native garden 2 days ago

Paved trails make the space more accessible to people with disabilities and allows the park to be more user friendly even when wet. 2 days ago

Lot of cool and interesting elements! My perfect mix would be concept C with more unpaved trails and one less playground. Let's conserve the natural space as much as possible. We might also not need a sports court, just have a mutiuse big grassy field where people can bring their own equipment. Less built and impervious infrastructure 2 days ago

Concept A requires crossing a road to use the restroom which is not ideal. Concepts A and C also separate the shelter from the play area which means parents cannot use the shelter to celebrate birthdays. Concept B does the best at grouping shelters and restrooms near a play area. 3 days ago

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

11/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Where do you live?

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

12/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

What is your ZIP code?

What is your age? 29

25 - 34

% 29 %

35 - 44

55 - 64

% 14

Over 65

% 10 %

45 - 54

3% 15 - 24 0% Under 15

89 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

13/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

What is your gender identity? 2% Non-binary

45% Male

53% Female

87 respondents

What is your ethnic identification? 92

Non-Hispanic

% 8% Hispanic

87 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

14/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

What is your racial identity? (Please select all that apply.) 79%

White

68 

10%

Black/African American

9 

Asian

5 

Latino/a/e/x

5 

American Indian/Alaskan Native

1 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

1 

86 Respondents

What is your marital status? 82

Married or Domestic Partnership

% 11 %

Never Married

6% Divorced 1% Others

84 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

15/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Do you identify as person with a disability? 8% Yes

92% No 85 respondents

What is your highest formal education level? 54

Bachelor's Degree

% 27 %

Graduate or Professional Degree

8% Some College 5% Associate's Degree 4% High School/GED 2% Less than High School/GED

83 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

16/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

What is your current employment status? Please select all that apply. 67%

Employed full-time (40 or more hours per week)

56 

14%

Retired

12 

Employed part-time (up to 39 hours per week)

6 

Self-employed

5 

Unemployed and currently looking for work

4 

Stay-at-home partner/caregiver

3 

Student

1 

Unemployed and not currently looking for work

0 

Unable to work

0 

84 Respondents

What is your approximate household income? 31

$100,000 to $149,999

% 31 %

$200,000 or more

$75,000 to $99,999

% 11

$150,000 to $199,999

% 9% $50,000 to $74,999 4% $35,000 to $49,999 4% Others

78 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

17/18

7/25/25, 4:40 PM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Do you rent or own your home? 88%

Own

74 

Neither

6 

Rent

5 

84 Respondents

I speak English as my first language. 94% 6%

Yes

80 

5 

85 Respondents

How did you hear about this survey? 33%

27 

33%

Word of mouth

27 

29%

City of Raleigh website

24 

17%

Social media

14 

10%

Yard sign

8 

By mail / postcard

3 

Handout / doorhanger

1 

83 Respondents

Loading more report objects...

https://publicinput.com/report?id=36001

18/18

10/6/25, 9:51 AM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Forestville Road Park - Concept Design - Community Support Survey Project Engagement VIEWS

PARTICIPANTS

RESPONSES

COMMENTS

SUBSCRIBERS

342

490

Do you support the proposed design of Forestville Road Park? I am...

47%

45%

Strongly Unsupportive

Unsupportive

Supportive

Strongly Supportive

55 responses

Do you have a fun or inspiring name idea, for us to consider when we begin the naming process for this future park? Forestville Nature Preserve 9/26/2025

 3 Agree

"Sycamore Nature Preserve" to symbolize freedom https://blog.oup.com/2019/04/america-trees-freedom/ 9/29/2025

 2 Agree

The Preserve at Forestville 9/30/2025

 1 Agree

Rolesville Batholith Park 9/26/2025

 1 Agree

Fun in the Forest Park 9/26/2025

 1 Agree

Forestville Park 9/23/2025

 1 Agree

Forrestville Road Nature Park 9/23/2025

 1 Agree

Forestville Haven Preserve 10/5/2025

Sycamore Park at Forestville 10/5/2025

Oak Hill Park to go with Oak Hill Drive or Oakley Park (oakley means oak meadow) 10/4/2025

https://publicinput.com/report?id=37272

1/10

10/6/25, 9:51 AM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Sycamore Slopes (something alliterative that pulls together the trees and the slopes of the land) 10/4/2025

Streamside Park 10/3/2025

Something about the history of the cabin, like the family name of whoever built it, or last owned it 10/3/2025

The Buffs Park or NE Raleigh Community Park & Trails or Forestville Rd Progressive Park 10/3/2025

Forestville Rd Preserve 10/1/2025

Restore the rustic cabin and make it part of the play structure, info desk, or something else. 10/1/2025

Park in the Forest 9/29/2025

Forestville Nature Preserve 9/29/2025

The forest on Forestville 9/29/2025

Forestville Road Park has really grown on me. 9/29/2025

Forestville Nature Park or Forestville Nature Preserve 9/29/2025

The name of the park should encourage relationship between the community and the creek. 9/28/2025

Peace By The Forest 9/27/2025

Do you have any additional comments for the design team? It seems to be a well-planned concept. Nice! 10/5/2025

I don't like the additional driveway that cuts between the pecan grove/historic cabin and the playground. It seems like a lot of extra hardscape for not much gain and a potential hazard for kids running from the playground. 10/3/2025

preserve as much nature as possible 10/3/2025

https://publicinput.com/report?id=37272

2/10

10/6/25, 9:51 AM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Voting for a pickleball court. Hoping the adventure park area has ample seating & shade. 9/30/2025

Water feature?? 9/30/2025

Other ideas to include in the new park are a splash zone, a dog park and an adult area (brewery). 9/29/2025

Sport courts seem to get less use than play areas, unless there is a local league that will use the court regularly. The play area appears to be what is presently in fashion. The tower with slide looks like a leftover from Dix's play park. 9/29/2025

Metal slides don’t do well unless covered. Squish ground is always great. 9/29/2025

Concept C had the most to do for everyone! I’m all for preserving nature, but we can preserve nature while providing families with things to do just like in the Downtown Cary Park. 9/29/2025

Thank you for all you do! 9/29/2025

The name should honor the history, beauty, the forest and unique aspects of the area (I.e. Batholith Rocks, the creek, natural habitats, etc) 9/28/2025

Appreciate all you are doing on the property where I grew up. 9/27/2025

Trees planted near paved and natural trails will generate shade and make the park more useable to walkers in warmer months. 9/25/2025

Please include somewhere for dogs to run around off leash! 9/25/2025

Please preserve nature and incorporate natural gathering and play areas with hiking/walking trails. Maybe some natural art structures too. 9/23/2025

I LOVE the adventure play! This kind of playground isn't common in Raleigh so it is a welcome addition to give children variety! I'm somewhat disappointed to see there is no shelter nearby for families to use for birthday parties. 9/23/2025

https://publicinput.com/report?id=37272

3/10

10/6/25, 9:51 AM

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

Where do you live?

 

All participants

All Time

What is your ZIP code?

https://publicinput.com/report?id=37272

4/10

10/6/25, 9:51 AM

 

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

All participants

All Time

What is your age? 36

35 - 44

% 21 %

45 - 54

18 %

25 - 34

55 - 64

% 11

Over 65

% 0% Others

28 respondents

 

All participants

All Time

What is your gender identity?

22% Male

78% Female

27 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=37272

5/10

10/6/25, 9:51 AM

 

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

All participants

All Time

What is your ethnic identification? 85

Non-Hispanic

% 15 %

Hispanic

26 respondents

 

All participants

All Time

What is your racial identity? (Please select all that apply.)

74%

White

20 

19%

Black/African American

5 

Latino/a/e/x

2 

American Indian/Alaskan Native

1 

Asian

0 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

0 

27 Respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=37272

6/10

10/6/25, 9:51 AM

 

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

All participants

All Time

What is your marital status? 81

Married or Domestic Partnership

% 12 %

Divorced

4% Never Married 4% Widowed 0% Separated

26 respondents

 

All participants

All Time

Do you identify as person with a disability?

100% No 27 respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=37272

7/10

10/6/25, 9:51 AM

 

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

All participants

All Time

What is your highest formal education level? 46

Bachelor's Degree

% 32 %

Graduate or Professional Degree

11 %

Some College

7% Associate's Degree 4% High School/GED 0% Less than High School/GED

28 respondents

 

All participants

All Time

What is your current employment status? Please select all that apply.

70%

Employed full-time (40 or more hours per week)

19 

19%

Retired

5 

Employed part-time (up to 39 hours per week)

2 

Stay-at-home partner/caregiver

2 

Student

0 

Unemployed and currently looking for work

0 

Unemployed and not currently looking for work

0 

Self-employed

0 

Unable to work

0 

27 Respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=37272

8/10

10/6/25, 9:51 AM

 

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

All participants

All Time

What is your approximate household income? 38

$100,000 to $149,999

% 21 %

$75,000 to $99,999

14 %

$150,000 to $199,999

$200,000 or more

% 10

$50,000 to $74,999

% 3% $35,000 to $49,999 0% Others

26 respondents

 

All participants

All Time

Do you rent or own your home?

93%

Own

25 

Rent

2 

Neither

0 

27 Respondents

 

All participants

All Time

I speak English as my first language.

96% 4%

Yes

25 

1 

26 Respondents

https://publicinput.com/report?id=37272

9/10

10/6/25, 9:51 AM

 

City of Raleigh, NC - Report Creation

All participants

All Time

How did you hear about this survey?

31%

Social media

8 

27%

7 

23%

Word of mouth

6 

15%

City of Raleigh website

4 

15%

Yard sign

4 

By mail / postcard

1 

Handout / doorhanger

0 

26 Respondents

Loading more report objects...

https://publicinput.com/report?id=37272

10/10

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix H: Open House Results

Open House Results Public Open House 1: Initial Input + Design Goals May 5, 2025

Page 1 of 9

Page 2 of 9

Page 3 of 9

Page 4 of 9

Public Open House 2: Design Alternatives July 10, 2025

Page 5 of 9

Concept Plan Voting Preferences Concept A: 4 votes • I like the cabin in its current location and would also like to see a slight path to the area • Would love the natural area to include play line canopy trails etc Concept B: 6 votes • I love the sports court area of plan B the most. • Liked pollinator garden • Liked Memorial Garden idea • I like the memorial garden a lot!! • Would love to see a different type of sport – live volleyball that is not found on this side of Raleigh Concept C: 8 votes • I love the front part park of C that includes the neighborhood center and community garden. However, I don’t feel the need to have 2 different sides of the park developed. • I like moving the cabin up front, plan C, but not crazy about extra development with sports courts. • Liked C because of paved trail, most play area, cabin @ front, separate pickleball court • Why is Concept C even given as an option when it’s not possible to have a pickleball court there?! • My wife would like disc golf. She would also like pickleball courts. Page 6 of 9

• • • • • • • •

I like adventure play but don’t forget 2-5 and swings! Zipline, pickleball court, fenced in playground Varied aged play structures, swings? Pickleball courts Liked Concept C minus the pickleball court Like neighborhood center and relocated cabin No need for 3 parking lots Love the two playgrounds Love outdoor sport court

Page 7 of 9

Public Open House 3: Draft Concept Plan September 22, 2025

Page 8 of 9

Written Comments Received (Share Your Thoughts Board) • Maintain the cabin with historic signage • Build shelter for birthday parties • I would like to see the construction of racquetball court in some of the City of Raleigh Parks • Maintain the cabin with historic signage • Love that the sports courts are minimal/multi-purpose – better flexibility / use of space • Glad to see adventure play relocation from back of park to front – better concentrated amenities while leaves more natural area across back half/less disruptive to natural resources • Retention of cabin is so important – both for historic/cultural reasons & to anchor the park

Page 9 of 9

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix I: Development Agreement

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix J: Archeological Study

AN INTENSIVE CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION: FORESTVILLE ROAD PROPERTY WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

By: Scott Seibel, RPA

For: The City of Raleigh

ESI Report of Investigations No. 1391

ER 10-065.00

November 2010

Environmental Services, Inc. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, NC 27610

Forestville Road Property

Preliminary Sections

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report presents the findings of an intensive archaeological survey of the Forestville Road Property in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. This investigation was conducted by Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) of Raleigh, North Carolina, for the City of Raleigh. Although the project was not subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) at the time of the investigation, the archaeological survey and reporting was designed to comply with guidelines established by the Office of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States and to meet the requirement of the NHPA. The Forestville Road Property consists of an approximately 26.29-acre area located at 4913 Forestville Road, north of its intersection with Buffaloe Road in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. Initial background research was conducted by the City of Raleigh and supplied to ESI. Additional research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (NC OSA) and using U.S. Census records available on-line through Ancestry.com. Field survey methods employed during the investigation consisted of pedestrian inspection, shovel testing, and the excavation of a limited number of 50-x-50 centimeter test units. Areas of clear visibility, including eroded or exposed ground surfaces and unpaved roads within the survey area, were inspected for artifacts and other signs of prehistoric or historic cultural activity. Shovel tests were typically excavated at 30-meter intervals for site discovery and 15-meter intervals or judgmentally for site investigation. No shovel tests were excavated in wetlands or on slopes greater than 15 percent. Field investigations occurred in August and September 2010 and were conducted by Scott Seibel, who served as Principal Investigator, and Matt Postlewaite. As a result of the investigation, three archaeological sites, 31WA1772/1772**-31WA1774** were documented. Table A presents a summary of information for the three sites. Neither site 31WA1773/1773** (James Upchurch Site) nor site 31WA1774** (Freddie’s Path) are considered eligible for the National Register. Site 31WA1773/1773** has little archaeological integrity, a result of disturbance from a combination of mechanical demolition and late twentieth century construction, and 31WA1774** does not have the potential to yield significant new information pertaining to the history of the area or the construction of old roads. Table A: Summary of Site Data Site Number Cultural Affiliation 31WA1772/ Unknown Prehistoric/ 1772** Mid-19th to mid-20th century 31WA1773/ Unknown Prehistoric/ 1773** Mid-19th to mid-20th century 31WA1774** Mid-19th to mid-20th century

Site Type Limited Activity/ Domestic, Agriculture Limited Activity/ Domestic, Agriculture Transportation

Recommendations Potentially eligible Not eligible - NFW Not eligible - NFW

Investigations at 31WA1772/1772** suggest that the site has the potential to be eligible for listing in the National Register. The site contains the nearly intact foundations of the house and a large outbuilding as well as apparently intact archaeological deposits. Artifacts suggest that the beginning of the occupation dates to ca. 1869, but it may pre-date the Civil War, based on accounts from some members of the extended Upchurch family. This site has the potential to

Forestville Road Property

Preliminary Sections

yield significant information pertaining to the transition from slavery to tenancy and/or the lifeways of African-American tenants in Wake County during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Additional significance testing is recommended to determine if the site is eligible for the National Register. All three archaeological sites documented as a result of this investigation retain cultural features and physical characteristics that would allow them to be used for cultural interpretation within an educational park setting, regardless of their National Register eligibility status. ESI recommends that a landscape approach be taken to the design of the park that would help convey the historical character of the property. This would include a combination of preservation of existing features (cultural and natural) and restoration of some aspects of the historical natural landscape.

Forestville Road Property

Preliminary Sections

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION

1.1

ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND Physiography and Geology Hydrology Soils Vegetative Communities Wildlife Current Land Use

2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3

CULTURAL BACKGROUND Prehistoric Background Historic Period Summary Project Specific History Historical Summary Genealogical Information Property Ownership and Title History Informant Interviews Extant and Former Structures and Other Notable Features

3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.9

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

4.1

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Field Survey Research Design Documentary Research Field Methodology Laboratory Methodology Archaeological Site Descriptions Site Definitions and Evaluations National Register Eligibility Criteria Archaeological Sites Nomenclature

5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.5

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS 31WA1772/1772** 31WA1773/1773** (James Upchurch Site) 31WA1774** (Freddie’s Path)

6.1 6.1 6.7 6.10

iii

Forestville Road Property

Preliminary Sections

Page 6.12

Other Notable Features 7.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations National Register Eligibility Park Design and Educational Potential Recommendations

7.1 7.1 7.1 7.2

REFERENCES CITED

R.1

APPENDIX A: Artifact Tables

A.1

Forestville Road Property

Preliminary Sections

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5 Figure 6.6 Figure 6.7 Figure 6.8 Figure 6.9 Figure 6.10 Figure 6.11 Figure 6.12 Figure 6.13 Figure 6.14 Figure 6.15

Following Page Project Location 1.1 Project Soils 2.1 Photos-Upchurch Families 3.5 1966 Plat of Upchurch Division and Roger Montague Sketch Plan 3.7 Photos-Cabin 3.7 Site Location 6.1 Aerial Photography 6.1 Aerial Photography 6.1 Site Plan-31WA1772/1772** and 31Wa1774** 6.2 Site Photos-31WA1772/1772** 6.2 Site Photos-31WA1772/1772** 6.2 House Plan and TU Profiles-31WA1772/1772** 6.2 Outbuilding Plan and TU Profiles-31WA1772/1772** 6.2 Artifact Photo-31WA1772/1772** 6.3 Site Plan-31WA1773/1773** 6.7 Site Photos-31WA1773/1773** 6.7 Site Photos-31WA1773/1773** 6.7 Artifact Photo-31WA1773/1773** 6.8 Site Photo-31WA1774** 6.11 Photos-Stone-lined Spring and Quarry 6.12

Forestville Road Property

Preliminary Sections

LIST OF TABLES

Table A Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 5.1 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 7.1

Page Summary of Site Data i Project Area Soils 2.1 Prehistoric Chronology of the Central Piedmont of North Carolina 3.1 Functional Typology (modified from Orser 1988) 5.2 Summary of artifacts recovered from shovel tests 6.4 Summary of artifacts recovered from test units 6.4 Summary of artifacts recovered from shovel tests 6.8 Summary of Site Data 7.1

Forestville Road Property

1. Introduction

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of an intensive archaeological survey of the Forestville Road Property in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. This investigation was conducted by Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) of Raleigh, North Carolina, for the City of Raleigh. Although the project was not subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) at the time of the investigation, the archaeological survey and reporting was designed to comply with guidelines established by the Office of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States and to meet the requirement of the NHPA. The Forestville Road Property consists of an approximately 26.29-acre area located at 4913 Forestville Road, north of its intersection with Buffaloe Road in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina (Figure 1.1). The goal of the investigation was to identify and assess the significance, if possible, of any historic-era archaeological sites located on the property, herein referred to cultural resources. Although not a part of the Scope of Work, ESI also documented any prehistoric archaeological sites encountered during the course of the investigation. The term “cultural resources” as used herein is meant to refer to sites or objects that are archaeological, architectural, and/or historical in nature. “Significant” cultural resources are those meeting the criteria of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), as defined in 36 CFR 60.4. All fieldwork was designed to comply with guidelines established by the Office of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States. The following report was prepared in accordance with federal and state guidelines. Initial background research was conducted by the City of Raleigh and supplied to ESI. Additional research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (NC OSA) and using U.S. Census records available on-line through Ancestry.com. Field survey methods employed during the investigation consisted of pedestrian inspection, shovel testing, and the excavation of a limited number of 50-x-50 centimeter test units. Areas of clear visibility, including eroded or exposed ground surfaces and unpaved roads within the survey area, were inspected for artifacts and other signs of prehistoric or historic cultural activity. Shovel tests were typically excavated at 30-meter intervals for site discovery and 15-meter intervals or judgmentally for site investigation. No shovel tests were excavated in wetlands or on slopes greater than 15 percent. Field investigations occurred in August and September 2010 and were conducted by Scott Seibel, who served as Principal Investigator, and Matt Postlewaite.

1.1

*Project Location *Location and Extent is Approximate.

1,000

2,000

Feet Sources: Raleigh East Quadrangle, NC, 1999; Project Boundary from Wake County parcels data, 2009. The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919 212-1707 Fax www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Project Location

Forestville Road Property City of Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina

File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\2010\065\GIS\mxd\Fig1.1Location.mxd Printed: 10/04/2010 10:36 am

Project: ER10-065.00 Date:

Oct. 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

CD/SS

Figure:

1.1

Forestville Road Property

2. Environmental Background

ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND

Physiography and Geology The project area is in the Piedmont physiographic province. The landscape is gently sloping to rolling and contains drainages bordered by moderately steep slopes (USDA 1970:1). Underlying geology is composed of intrusive granitic rocks dating to the Middle and Late Paleozoic (NCGS 1991). Elevations within the project area range from a low of 230 feet amsl in an unnamed drainage in the northwestern portion of the project area to a high of 310 feet amsl in the northeastern corner of the project area along Oak Hill Drive. Hydrology The project area lies within the Neuse River drainage basin. The project area is drained by two unnamed drainages that flow into an unnamed tributary of Harris Creek, which then flows into the Neuse River. Soils Soil development is dependent upon biotic and abiotic factors that include past geologic activities, nature of parent material, environmental and human influences, plant and animal activity, age of sediments, climate, and topographic position. A general soil association contains one or more mapping units occupying a unique natural landscape position. Map units (soil series) are named for the major soil or soils within the unit, but may have minor inclusions of other soils. A general soil association contains one or more mapping units occupying a unique natural landscape position. The project area occurs within the Appling-Louisburg-Wedowee soil association. The soils within this association range from gently sloping to moderately steep and are well drained soils. The map units (soil series) are named for the major soil or soils within the unit, but may have minor inclusions of other soils. Soil maps of Wake County show seven soil units within the project area (USDA 1970). These are described in Table 2.1 and shown in Figure 2.1. Table 2.1: Project Area Soils Name Louisburg loamy sand

Code LoD

Slope 10-15%

Louisburg-Wedowee complex

LwC

6-10%

LwC2

6-10%

VaB2 VaC2 WkE WmC2

2-6% 6-10% 10-25% 6-10%

Louisburg-Wedowee complex, eroded Vance sandy loam, eroded Vance sandy loam, eroded Wake soils Wedowee sandy loam, eroded

2.1

Drainage Somewhat excessively Well to somewhat excessively Well to somewhat excessively Well Well Somewhat excessively Well

Landform Side slopes Side slopes Side slopes Interstream divides Side slopes Side slopes Side slopes

LwB2 WmC WmC2

WmB

WkE

DuC

WmB

WmB2

LwC2

VaC2

WmC2

LwC2 W

DuB

WmB2

WmC2 LoB

LoD

LoB

LwC

W WoA

MeA

WmB

LwC2

LwB

ApC

MeA LoB

LoD

DuB

LoB

LoB CnA ApB2 MeA ApC2

MeA

LoC

LoB

MeA WmC ApD

LoD

VaC2

LwC2

WyA

LoB

LwB

LwB2

LoC

*Location and Extent is Approximate. 0

WkE

LoD 500

1,000 LwC

Feet

LwC2

LwB2

LwC2

WmB2 Sources: NRCS Soil Survey of Wake County, 2007; 2009 NAIP, Wake County, NC, 2009; Wake County parcels data, 2009.

ApB

WoA

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919 212-1707 Fax

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\2010\065\GIS\mxd\Fig2.1Soils.mxd Printed: 10/04/2010 11:31 am

ApC

LoC

WoA VaB2 WkE LwC VaB2 The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes LoD VaC2 VaB2only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.LoB DuB LoC W

WyA

VaB2

DuB

Forestville Road Property City of Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina

WkC LoC DuB

LoB CnA

MeA WmB

LoB

MeA WmB WmB2

MeA LwB ApB2 CnA

Project Soils

ApC2

W LoD

DuB *Project Location WyA WmC2 WmC2 MeA NRCS Soils LoB MeA W WmB2 WmB2 WmB2 LoD - Louisburg loamy sand, 10-15% slopes ApB DuB WyA DuB W WyA LwC - Louisburg-Wedowee complex, 6-10% slopes LoB LwB2 VaB2 LoB CnA LwC2 - Louisburg-Wedowee LoD complex, 6-10% slopes, moderately erodedCnA ApB VaB2 MeA VaB2 - Vance sandy loam, 2-6% slopes, moderately eroded W LwB2 MeA CnA LoB WmB2 LoB VaC2 - Vance sandy loam, 6-10% slopes, moderately eroded LwC LwC2 LwC2 WkE - Wake-Wateree Complex, 10-25% slopes, very rocky W LwB2 CnA WyA WmB LwC2 WkE WmC2 - Wedowee sandy loam, 6-10% slopes, moderately eroded LoB WmC2 ApB LoD

LoD

WmC2

ApB

LoB

LoD

CnA

WmC2

LwC

DuC DuB

LoD

LoC

ApB

LoC

LwC2 WmB2

ApB

LwC

WmB

PgF

LoD

LwB2

VaC2

WmC2

LwB

WoA

LwC2

WmC2

VaC2

WmB2

LwC

LwC2

WmC2

LwC2

WkE

WoA

WkE

VaC2

LwC2 WmB2 LwB2

LwC2

VaB2

LoD

ApD

LoB

LoD

LwB

LoD

VaC2

DuB

LoB

MeA

ApB

MeA

LoB

LwC

MeA

LoD

VaB2

WyA

LoD

VaC2

LwC

WmB

LoB

VaB2

WmD2

WyA

LoD

LwC

WmC

ApC2

WoA

ApC

Project: ER10-065.00 Date: Drwn/Chkd: Figure:

Oct. 2010 CD/SS 2.1

Forestville Road Property

2. Environmental Background

Vegetative Communities The draft System Integration Plan (SIP; Raleigh Parks and Recreation Land Stewardship [RPRLS] 2010:14-15) for the Forestville Road Property contains a description of the plant species found within the project area during investigations conducted in May, June, July, October, and December 2009. Names of species follow Weakley (2008). The following discussion is paraphrased from the SIP. Generally speaking, the project area is comprised of Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest and DryMesic Oak-Pine Forest communities with small areas of Granitic Flatrock community and pasture land and maintained land reverting to secondary growth. Most of the forested land contains young growth except along the drainages and around the locations of existing or former structures. Larger canopy species include oak (Quercus spp., hickory (Carya spp.), pine (Pinus spp.), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) as well as sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), while regenerating species includes the former as well as maple (Acer spp.) and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Common understory species include American holly (Ilex opaca) and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). The Granitic Flatrock communities typically contain prickly pear cactus (Opuntia humifusa), bear-grass (Yucca filamentosa), wild petunia (Ruellia caroliniensis), and spurred butterfly pea (Centrosema virginianum). Herbs are generally found in open areas and along the forest edges and include species such as Elephant’s foot (Elephantopus tomentosa), bare-stemmed tick-trefoil (Desmodium mudiflorum), and Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia). Numerous fern varieties, particularly Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) are also common. Plants found in the regenerating pasture lands include lespedeza (Lespedeza cunneata), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and seedlings of pine and sweet gum. Around the former house location near Forestville Road are found a number of nonnative species, including pecan (Carya illinoensis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), crape myrtle (Lagerstoemia spp.), and pear (Pyrus sp.), as well as Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora). Invasive species observed include mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimeneum), multiflora rose (Roda multiflora), periwinkle (Vinca minor), and liriope (Liriope spciata). Wildlife The following discussion is summarized from ESI (2005). Mammal species expected within the project area include gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Other mammal species expected to occur within the project study area include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana). Several bird species are expected to occur within the project area. These species include pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American crow (Corvus

2.2

Forestville Road Property

2. Environmental Background

brachyrhynchos), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Other species expected to occur within the project study area include a mix of species adapted to ecotonal and fragmented landscapes, as well as species requiring more contiguous forested habitat. Terrestrial reptile species expected to occur within the project area include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), black racer (Coluber constrictor), and black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta). Terrestrial amphibian species expected to occur within the project area include spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler’s toad (Bufo woodhousei), and northern cricket frog (Pseudacris crepitans). Current Land Use The western one-fifth of the property, along the eastern side of Forestville Road, consists of a partially maintained yardscape containing scattered shrubs and trees. Two twentieth century structures, a barn and a shed or “playhouse”, as well as the infrastructure remains associated with recently removed single-wide trailers and a manufactured home, including power lines and septic systems, are also located in this portion of the property. In the southwestern corner of the property are two small pasture-like areas that represent abandoned agricultural field. The rest of the property is forested, although the species found depends on the former twentieth century land use, which consisted of agricultural fields and pastures, a cleared yardscape, and generally unmodified areas along streams and drainageways.

2.3

Forestville Road Property

3. Cultural Background

CULTURAL BACKGROUND

Prehistoric Background As the focus of this project was on the historic occupation of the property, and as no diagnostic prehistoric artifacts were found during the investigation, only a summary of the prehistoric chronology of the area is presented. The prehistoric cultural chronology of North Carolina was developed based on the excavation of stratified archaeological sites and was first summarized by Coe (1964). Mathis and Crow (1983) and Ward and Davis (1999) summarized further refinements. According to Ward and Davis (1999:22), the project area is located within the Central Piedmont archaeological region. The major prehistoric cultural periods in the Central Piedmont region of North Carolina are the Pre-Clovis, Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Contact, which are detailed below in Table 3.1. Those who are interested in a more in-depth discussion of the prehistory of the region can turn to Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina by H. Trawick Ward and R.P. Stephen Davis from the University of North Carolina Press. Table 3.1: Prehistoric Chronology of the Central Piedmont of North Carolina Cultural Period

Temporal Placement

Pre-Clovis

???-10000 BC

Paleoindian

10000 – 8000 BC

Archaic Early Middle Late

8000 – 6000 BC 6000 – 3000 BC 3000 – 1000 BC

Woodland Early/Middle Late

1000 BC – AD 1000 AD 800 – 1600

Contact

AD 1600 – 1710

Historic Period Summary During the Colonial period, the area of present-day Wake County was largely uninhabited wilderness. Though John Lawson may have passed through the area in 1701, settlers remained few until at least the mid-eighteenth century (Murray 1983:8; Gunn and Stanyard 1998:41). As open land in the coastal plain began to be occupied, many people moved up the river valleys into the Piedmont. In 1746, Johnston County, which included what is now Wake County, was

3.1

Forestville Road Property

3. Cultural Background

established. By the 1750s, a trading post, ordinary, and church had been established near the Falls of the Neuse (Murray 1983:35, 99). As the population in the Piedmont continued to grow, new counties were formed. Wake County was established in 1771, but remained a scarcely inhabited backwater until 1792, when the General Assembly resolved to establish a permanent state capital in the county. Prior to the establishment of a permanent seat of government, the General Assembly met in whatever town the governor lived. The capital city was laid out on a thousand acres purchased from Joel Lane and named in honor of Sir Walter Raleigh (Powell 1989:212). After the establishment of Raleigh, population growth in Wake County centered on the new capital city (Gunn and Stanyard 1998:44). Despite its new political importance, Wake County, like much of the rest of the Piedmont, suffered from a lack of reliable transportation. Roads were few, and those that existed were usually poorly maintained, and rivers and other waterways were the main avenues of transportation and trade. As a result, farming was the primary livelihood in the county during the late eighteenth century. The agricultural economy was supplemented by gristmills that were built along the numerous streams in the region. Finally, in the late 1830s, improvements in transportation began to manifest themselves in Wake County. Railroad lines were planned that would connect Raleigh and other points in the county with the shipping centers on the North Carolina coast and with Richmond, Virginia (Powell 1989:286-287). As a result, large cotton plantations came to dominate agricultural production in the county. Also, large mills, including the largest paper mill in the state, began to prosper (Gunn and Stanyard 1998:44). The construction of the North Carolina Railroad through St. Mary’s Township, to the southeast of Raleigh, in the 1850s brought economic prosperity to that fertile agricultural area. Because both cotton and tobacco flourished in the areas soils, some of the county’s largest plantations were located in St. Mary’s Township (Lally 1994: 408). During the early years of the Civil War, Wake and other Piedmont counties were centers of shelter for refugees fleeing the military strife in the Coastal Plain (Powell 1989:358). For much of the war, Raleigh and Wake County were spared the physical tolls of war. During March and April 1865, Union General William Sherman marched through North Carolina, taking city after city and heading for Raleigh. After General Lee surrendered at Appomattox on 11 April 1865, representatives of the North Carolina government met with General Sherman to ask that Raleigh be spared the destruction that had accompanied the fall of Atlanta, Columbia and other Southern cities. Two days later, on April 13, Sherman had established his headquarters in Raleigh. The era of Reconstruction brought many changes to the North Carolina Piedmont. Chief among them was the removal of the slave system. Because the available labor force for working the farms was reduced, large tracts of land were taken out of production. Consequently, much of this fallow land was sold by larger planters, which resulted in an increased number of small farms. A related change in rural lifeways during the late nineteenth century was the rise of tenant farming (Powell 1989:419).

3.2

Forestville Road Property

3. Cultural Background

Despite the changes in agricultural production methods, cotton continued to be the predominant crop of the region into the 1870s. By the 1880s, the production of brightleaf tobacco began to overtake cotton production as the chief agricultural activity in Wake County (Gunn and Stanyard 1998:45). In 1883, the town of Garner was incorporated along the North Carolina Railroad line. Agriculture remained the dominant economic force in Wake County through the early years of the twentieth century. Due to the appearance of the automobile early in the century, many roads were improved by sand/clay surfacing. During the 1920s, the “Good Roads” program led to the paving of roads throughout the county, making transportation easier. During the 1950s, plans were begun to construct a research and industrial center in central North Carolina. In December 1958 the Research Triangle Foundation was incorporated and began to purchase land in Wake and Durham counties. Within two years, the Research Triangle Park (RTP) had been established and many companies began to move into the region. The establishment of the Research Triangle Park led to dramatic changes in the economy and population of Wake County. By century’s end, agriculture, which had been dominant for two centuries, had been eclipsed by the varied enterprises in RTP as the economic lifeblood of Wake County. In addition, the growth of RTP led to rapid population growth in the region. The population growth in turn led to improvements to infrastructure, including the construction of I40 and the proposed Triangle Transit Authority light rail system. Project Specific History Historical Summary The Forestville Road property is only a small portion of what was once an approximately 600acre plantation originally owned by Kearney Upchurch. He likely came into ownership of the lands containing the Forestville Road Property in the 1830s or 1840s by will from his father or by purchase. Before his death, Kearney passed control of the property to his son, James Upchurch, who subsequently passed the land to his son, William Ivan Upchurch. After Ivan’s death in 1964, his landholdings were subdivided in 1966. Although to whom the tract that corresponds with the Forestville Road property was conveyed was not in documentation provided by the City of Raleigh, Roger Montague stated that it was conveyed his mother, Hallie Upchurch Montague (Personal Communication, August 2010). The City of Raleigh came into possession of the property in 2004. Genealogical Information Upchurch Family Kearney Upchurch was born on 8 February 1808 in Franklin County, North Carolina, to James and Elizabeth Thany Butler Upchurch. According to a genealogy posted on Geni.com (2010), his siblings included Chloe, Gilly, Elizabeth, and Jamison. He and his wife Emily Perry, who was born on 1 June 1813 according to her tombstone, were married on 22 November 1830 (North Carolina County Marriage Index [NCCMI]).

3.3

Forestville Road Property

3. Cultural Background

In the 1840 U.S. Census, the Kearney Upchurch and his wife had four sons all under the age of 15, as well as two “Free Colored” men or boys, between the ages of 10 and 23, one male slave under the age of 10, and one female slave between the ages of 10 and 23, living in the household. The more detailed 1850 census listed Kearney (age 45) and his wife Emily (age 38) with eight children: Williford (age 18), Calvin (age 13), James (age 11), Dallas (Age 10), Sabrina (age 7), Attila (age 5), Virginia (age 2), and Emily (age 6 months). Also living with the family were Middy A. Faison (age 19) and Alsey Watkins (age 18). Kearney, Williford, and Alsey were all listed as farmers. In the 1850 census Slave Schedules, Kearney Upchurch was listed as owning 10 slaves, two of whom were listed as 60 years old and seven of whom were listed as aged 11 or younger. One of the slaves was listed as Mulatto. Eight children were living in the Upchurch household according to the 1860 census, along with Kearney (age 52) and Emily (age 47). These included James W. (age 21), Dallas (age 19), Hellen (age 17), Attelia (age 14), Virginia (age 12), Emily (age 10), Allen (age 7), and Abigail (age 5). N.W. Dent (age 30) also lived in the house. Kearney was listed as a Farmer with $5,650 in real estate and $18,000 in personal estate. Dallas was listed as a Clerk, while Mr. Dent was listed as a Teacher. According to the 1860 census Slave Schedules, Kearney Upchurch owned 20 slaves, two of whom were over the age of 80 and 14 of whom were under the age of 18. Two of the slaves were listed as Mulatto rather than Black. Three Upchurch families were living next to one another in the 1870 census. In Kearney Upcurch’s (age 62) household were his wife Emily (age 59) and their children Emily (age 19), Allen (age 17), Abigail (age 16), and Emma (age 7). Also living in the house were Melissa Norwood (age 12) and Burney Fort (age 20), both black. Kearney was listed as a Farmer with $1,200 in real estate and $1,000 in personal estate. Allen was listed as a Farm Laborer, Emma and Abigail were listed At School, Melissa Norwood was listed as a Domestic Servant, while Burney Fort was listed as a Farm Laborer. Next door to Kearney Upchurch’s family was that of his son, Dallas. Dallas (age 30) lived with his wife Tabitha (age 23) and their son Amos (age 2). Dallas was listed as a Farm Laborer. Living next door to the Dallas Upchurch family was J.W. Upchurch (James, age 32), his wife Jane (age 25), and their three children Clarence (age 5), Wayland (age 3), and Viola (age 5 months). James, who was listed as a Farmer, had $300 in real estate and $300 in personal estate. By the 1880 census, Kearney Upchurch (age 72) had moved in with his son Dallas and Kearney’s wife Emily had died. According to her tombstone, Emily Upchurch died on 8 December 1872. Kearney Upchurch died two years after the census was taken, on 8 July 1882, according to the inscription on his tombstone. In Dallas’ (age 39) household were his wife Tabitha (age 36) and their children Amos (age 12), Theodor (age 9), Lola (age 2), and Wilofora (age 1 month) as well as Emma Rodgers (age 18), Dallas and Tabitha’s niece. Both Kearney and Dallas were listed as Farmers. James Upchurch’s (age 41) family lived next door. In his household were his wife Jane (age 37) and their six children: Clarence (age 14), Wayland (age 12), Viola (age 10), Milla (age 7), William (age 4), and Henry (age 1). James was listed as a Farmer, while his sons Clarence and Wayland were both listed as Laborers.

3.4

Forestville Road Property

3. Cultural Background

Kearney Upchurch wrote his will on 6 May 1880, and it was probated on 12 July 1882 (Wake County Wills [WCW] A:342, File 1549). His granddaughter Emma Rogers served as the executor of the will. Heirs named in the will included Allen P. Upchurch, James W. Upchurch, Dallas H. Upchurch, Virginia B. Pool and her husband N.W. Pool, Calvin W. Upchurch, Abigail J. Crabtree and her husband C.J. Crabtree, the heirs of Williford Upchurch, and Attealia B. Pool and her husband Irwin Pool. The will divided his property, which ran from the Neuse River, amongst his family members. J.W. (James) Upchurch (age 61) and his family are listed in the 1900 census, now in Matthews Township. In his household were his wife J.E. (Jane, age 58), his sons W.I. (age 24) and H.A. (age 23), and his daughter [name and age unintelligible]. James was a Farmer, and all three of his children were listed as Farm Laborers. Just down the road from James Upchurch and his family was the family of D.H. Upchurch (age 59), his wife Helen (age 42), and their son Lewis (age 18). D.H. was listed as a Farmer, while his son was listed as a Farm Laborer. In the 1910 census, two Upchurch families are listed next door to one another. [William] Ivan Upchurch’s (age 35) family included his wife Hallie (age 25), their four children Luby (age 7), Cary (age 5), Alon H. (age 3), and Erma G. (age 1), as well as his parents James W. (age 72) and Jane E. (age 68). William’s profession was listed as General Farmer. Next door was Louis Upchurch’s (age 27) family, which included his wife Bessie (age 20) and their son Raymond (age 2). Louis’ profession was also listed as General Farming. Pictures of James and Jane Upchurch, Ivan and Ellie Upchurch, and Ivan and Ellie’s children can be seen on Figure 3.1. In the 1920 census, William (age 44) and Hallie (age 36) were listed with their children Truby (age 17), Cary (age 15), Alvin (age 13), Emma (age 11), Clifford (age 9), Abby (age 7), and his mother Jane (age 78). William’s profession was listed as Farming, while Hallie and the four eldest children were listed as Helpers. The 1930 census lists W.I. Upchurch (age 54) and Hallie (age 47) along with their children Trubil (age 23), Emily (age 21), Clifford (age 19), Hallie V. (age 8), and Charles Ellis (age 5). William was listed as a Farmer, while his son Trubil was listed as a Laborer. Tenant House Determining the occupants of the tenant house located in the middle of the property was not possible. The only information about the residents of the house came from members of the Upchurch family, who recalled that an African-American couple, Fred and Irene Trice, lived in the house in the 1950s. Examining U.S. Census records from 1870 to 1930, a number of possible residents were identified, based on their proximity to the houses of Kearney, James, and Ivan Upchurch, as well as information such as if they owned or rented and if they were listed as White or Black/Mulatto on the census forms. In the 1870 census, the Temple family, headed by Willis Temple (age 50), appears to be the best candidate for residents of the tenant house. This family was listed only two houses down from Kearney Upchurch and his family on the census sheet and were the only African-American family in close proximity (at least on the census sheet). Interestingly, on the page before the

3.5

James and Jane Upchurch with grandchildren, date unknown.

View of cotton gin with Ivan and Ellie Upchurch on ramp, with children on cotton bales, ca. 1910.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Photos-Upchurch Families

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

3.1

Forestville Road Property

3. Cultural Background

Kearney Upchurch listing, 21 members of the Smith family living in five different houses were listed, all of whom were described as Black or Mulatto. It is known that Kearney Upchurch owned 20 slaves in 1860, according to the Slave Schedules. Although speculation, the Smith family members may represent Kearney Upchurch’s former slaves. Listed immediately after the James Upchurch family in the 1880 census were Margutt Hinton, a 23 year old African-American woman, and Goin Morgan, a 19 year old African-American man. In the next house on the census was Rufus Fuller, an 18 year old man listed as a Mulatto. All three were listed as Laborers. These are the most likely candidates for residents of the tenant house for that year. Two families renting their houses were listed in the 1900 census on either side of the James Upchurch listing. One of the families consisted of Henry Williams (27) and his wife Ada (23), while the other family was comprised of W.R. Keith (24) and his wife Mary H. (25). The Williams family was listed as Black, while the Keith family was listed as White. Henry Williams worked as a Laborer, while W.R. Keith worked as a Farmer. It is most likely that one of these two families lived in the tenant house in 1900. As mentioned above, the Louis Upchurch family was listed immediately before the Ivan Upchurch family in the 1910 census. Louis Upchurch was listed as a Renter. Listed after the Ivan Upchurch family was the Deadmans, an African-American family. The household was headed by Lucy Deadman (48), who lived with her daughters Lizer (27) and Annah (13) and sone Isica (18) and Lonnie (11). All members of the family save Lonnie were listed as Farm Laborers. It seems more likely that the Deadman’s were the residents of the tenant house in 1910 instead of the Louis Upchurch family. Eight African-American families all renting their houses were listed before the Ivan Upchurch family listing in the 1920 census, and the next six houses were occupied by White landowners. Although listed in different houses by the census taker, the last two families listed before the Upchurch family, the Poole and Hinton families, likely lived together, as the three members of the Poole family were all described as Grandchild and were all age 7 or younger. The combined Hinton/Poole household included 13 people, a number that seems too large to have lived in the tenant house, based on the size of the building foundation (described in Chapter 6, Results of Field Investigations). Rather, the family listed before, which included Marr Bridges (44), his wife Matta (age unknown), and their children Minday (12) and Minnie (9), seems the more likely candidate. Marr’s profession was listed as Farming, while Matta and Minday were listed as Laborers. Two African-American families that rented their houses were listed on either side of the Ivan Upchurch family in the 1930 census. One family was comprised of Willie Holden (30) and his wife Carrie (31). The other family was headed by Otis Lucas (30) and his wife Leda (27), who had four children: Romus E. (9), Willie (6), Walter (5), and Lepeadene (2). Willie Holden was listed as a Farmer, while Otis Lucas was listed as a Laborer at a Sawmill.

3.6

Forestville Road Property

3. Cultural Background

Property Ownership and Title History Kearney received 278 acres of land, where he was residing, from his father James’ estate (WCW N:318). The will stated that the land was situated on Mocoson [sic] Creek and adjoined lands of Burkley Upchurch, Larkin Upchurch, and John Pearce, among others. The will also granted Kearney half of the slaves that his mother, Thany, had been lent by her husband. The will, which was signed on 1 May 1833, was probated in 1850. He acquired additional tracts of land during the late 1830s and 1840s. Kearney granted the property containing his house to his son Allen Perry Upchurch, Sr., the grandfather of Walter McGowan Upchurch, Jr. (WCW A:342). Allen was taking care of Kearney when he died. After his death, the estate of William Ivan Upchurch divided the approximately 200-acre farm into 10 parcels (Wake County Book of Maps [WCBM] 1966, 2:164; Figure 3.2, top), which were then sold or willed to other family members. According to Roger Montague (Personal Communication, August 2010), the 25.128-acre Tract 7 was conveyed to his mother Hallie Upchurch Montague, excepting an easement 30 feet in width that allowed for access to Tracts 8, 9, 10-A, and 10-B, to the east. Additionally, a 1.49-acre parcel in the southwest corner of the Forestville Road Property was excluded from the W.I. Upchurch division, as it had been previously conveyed to Joe E. Montague and his wife Hallie Upchurch Montague on 10 June 1947 (Wake County Deed Book [WCDB] 966:317). Hallie Montague was the daughter of William Ivan and Hallie Upchurch and the mother of Roger Montague. William E. Rouse, Jr., Elizabeth G. Rouse, W. Riley Johnston, and Mattie W. Johnston sold Tract 7 to Robert E. Ward, III, on 16 October 1983 (WCDB 2969:773). Robert E. Ward, III, and Christy Ward sold the property to Joyce Ann Poole on 21 September 1987 (WCDB 3049:506). Joyce Poole conveyed the property to the City of Raleigh in 2004 (WCDB 11043:707). Informant Interviews Roger Montague Roger Montague conducted email correspondence with a representative of the City of Raleigh in May 2010 and also visited the property in August 2010, meeting with representatives of the City of Raleigh and ESI. Roger Montague is the grandson of William Ivan Upchurch. While he did not live on the property proper, he did grow up in the house found just south of the property along the east side of Forestville Road and roamed over the property as a child. The small house on the outparcel where he grew up was built by his parents around 1944. He had not been back to the property, though, for almost 40 years at the time of the interviews. He stated that the log cabin standing in the southwest part of the property had been found during the removal of the tenant house. He said that his father deconstructed the cabin, moved it with the assistance of a mule and Roger (though according to Roger, it was as much help as a teenager could provide), and rebuilt it at its current location. According to Roger, the chimney of the cabin is not original, but the rock came from the property. Figure 3.3 shows a current picture of

3.7

1966 Plat of Division of Estate of William Ivan Upchurch. Tract 7 is Forestville Road Property.

1. Main House 2. Kitchen 3. Wood Shed 4. Tool Shed 5. Corn Bin/Ordering Pit 6. Hay Barn 7. Well 8. Grape Arbor 9. Smoke House — Freddie’s Path

Roger Montague schematic plan of Upchurch property prior to mid-1960s.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

1966 Plat of Upchurch Division and Roger Montague Sketch Plan

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

3.2

View of north and west elevations of cabin, facing southeast.

View of Joe Montague sitting on porch of reconstructed cabin, facing northeast.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Photos-Cabin

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

3.3

Forestville Road Property

3. Cultural Background

the cabin as well as a picture of the cabin with Joe Montague sitting on the porch. He recalls a small quarry being located somewhere to the northeast of the tenant house. Although this quarry was not relocated during the field investigations detailed in Chapter 6, a small quarry was found to the west of the tenant house. As remembered by Roger, the James Upchurch house was two stories with a winding staircase to the second floor. His mother Hallie Verna Upchurch Montague inherited the house and the property after her father Ivan’s death. Other buildings in the vicinity of the James Upchurch house included an exterior kitchen, a wood shed, a tool shed, a corn bin and ordering pit, a hay barn, and a smoke house. A sketch plan of the arrangement of the house and outbuildings was provided by Roger Montague and can be seen on Figure 3.2, bottom. Due to extensive termite damage, his parents made the decision to demolish the house in the mid-1960s. According to Roger, when the old James Upchurch house and many of the outbuildings were demolished, the remains were dumped in a large hole in the northeastern corner of the property, near Forestville Road. Structures still standing at the site, including the red barn and the rail fence, were built in the 1960s. John Perry and Erma Spaanbroek Representatives of the City of Raleigh conducted an interview with John Perry and his mother Erma Spaanbroek on 9 October 2009. Erma Spaanbroek lived across the Forestville Road from the project area, and her mother was Erma Upchurch Clifton. According to the interview, the pecan trees that are found on the western side of the property were present in the 1930s. Of the two wells known to exist, the older well was located next to the outside kitchen and was pumped by hand. The Pooles, who lived on the property during the late 1980s through the 2000s, built the well house over the newer well. After Ivan Upchurch died in 1964, the James Upchurch house was torn down. A tennis court was once located just off the eastern edge of Forestville Road, but it was not conveyed when it was built or when it was removed. The red barn still standing on the property was modified by the Poole family, which turned it into a workshop. Both cows and mules were kept on the farm. Erma remembered the cows being pastured near where the log cabin now stands. She also recalled her uncle, Joe Montague, moving the log cabin in the 1950s from the tenant house location. When Erma was a child, she recalled that Fred and Irene Trice lived in the tenant house. She also mentioned the presence of a spring near the tenant house. John Perry In an article by Dan Holly in the Midtown Raleigh News (26 May 2010), John Perry stated that his grandmother told him that the log cabin had been a slave cabin.

3.8

Forestville Road Property

3. Cultural Background

Extant and Former Structures and Other Notable Features While not on the property, the Kearney Upchurch house is still standing near the intersection of Forestville Road with Buffaloe Road. It is currently unoccupied and in poor condition. A small cemetery is located across Forestville Road from the house. It contains the graves of Kearney and his wife Emily, as well as a few other burials. Until the mid-2000s, there were two single-wide trailers and a manufactured home standing on the western edge of the property. While the trailers and house have been removed by the City of Raleigh, infrastructure such as septic systems and a paved driveway are still present. Currently, there are two buildings still standing along the western edge of the property. The redpainted workshop building was built around 1965 by Joe Montague and was not part of the complex of domestic and agricultural structures associated with the James Upchurch occupation. The original building has a small barn/shed roof addition on its south elevation and a storage room addition on its north elevation. It was originally used for feeding livestock, but was later converted into a work shed by the Poole family. A small building used as a playhouse is located in the former location of a work shed that was used for tobacco processing. According to Roger Montague, the work shed once had a cellar underneath where tobacco leaves were hung to soften before they were rolled. Although no longer present, the James Upchurch homesite reportedly included a tennis court, supposedly a popular attraction for visitors to the Upchurch place in the early 1900s. According to Roger Montague, the tennis courts were likely located in the southeastern corner of the property, just to the north of the paved driveway. A cotton gin once stood on the property. A picture of the gin from 1910 shows members of the Upchurch family. As shown on the picture, it was a two story frame building with shiplap siding and a short ramp to the main entrance on one of the gable ends. A short projection of the roof extended over the ramp and appears to have contained a pulley. It is thought to have been located to the southeast of the Upchurch complex, east of the paved driveway. A log cabin is located near the southwestern corner of the project area. According to some members of the Upchurch family, the cabin was once used as a slave quarter, though there is no evidence to support this claim. It is not in its original location; rather, it was moved from the middle of the property by Joe Montague in the 1950s. The cabin was at the core of an old tenant house that Joe Montague was demolishing. The cabin is a one-story structure constructed mainly of hand hewn logs that reportedly contains the original floorboards, ceiling, and fireplace. The cabin currently sits on faced granite block piers and has a chimney comprised of large, roughly faced granite slabs. While faced granite is not a typical feature of log cabins due to the expense of hauling and facing the stone, these granite blocks may have come from the property. According to Roger Montague, there was an outcropping of granite to the northeast of the tenant house that had been used as a small quarry. The mortar joining the stones of the chimney contains an inscription “04/19/70”, which likely refers to the date when the building of the chimney by Joe Montague was completed.

3.9

Forestville Road Property

3. Cultural Background

Apart from the tradition of some members of the extended Upchurch family, the possible former use of the cabin as a slave quarter comes from an interview of Georgianna Foster in Wake Treasures, a publication of the Wake County Genealogical Society. In the article she stated that “I wus [sic] born at Kerney [sic] Upchurch’s plantation…We lived in log houses…” (Foster 1997). A small stable is located next to an abandoned pasture to the west-northwest of the log cabin. The stable is of frame construction and according to Roger Montague, was not in existence in the 1950s or 1960s.

3.10

Forestville Road Property

3. Cultural Background

3.11

Forestville Road Property

4. Previous Investigations

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Prior to this archaeological investigation there had been 1,768 archaeological sites recorded within Wake County. Some of the archaeological projects performed within the county include an archaeological reconnaissance survey for the Neuse River/Perry Creek Sewer Interceptor Project (Hargrove 1986, 1987). This project extended along the west bank of the Neuse River from its confluence with Richland Creek in the north towards its confluence with Crabtree Creek in the south, as well as portions of Perry Creek and Beaverdam Creek. Most of the western bank of the Neuse River across from the project area was subjected to survey, including pedestrian inspection of exposed ground surfaces and shovel testing. Since 1993, NCDOT projects have accounted for the bulk of the archaeological investigations in Wake County. Archaeological investigations have been conducted for two improvements to US 401 (Glover 1993a; Robinson 1998), the construction of the NC 55 Holly Springs Bypass (Glover 1993b, 1994), and the construction of the US 70 Clayton Bypass (Robert and Butler 1993). The construction of the NC 98 Wake Forest Bypass project led to the evaluation of two archaeological sites (31WA175 and 31WA180) in Wake County (Mintz 1994; Sheehan 1999), and the archaeological survey of the Western Wake Expressway corridor resulted in the identification of 26 sites (Millis and Pickett 2002). Archaeological investigations were conducted during the planning of the US 64 bypass and relocation (Abbott et al. 1995; Abbott and Sanborn 1997; Brown 2002; Mohler and Overton 2002). Several road extension and bridge replacement surveys have been conducted throughout Wake County in the past two decades (Joy 1993; Mintz and Beaman 1996; Joy and O’Connell 1997a, 1997b; Petersen 1999; Bon-Harper 2002a, 2002b). Several other archaeological investigations have been conducted in Wake County since the early 1990s. Archaeological surveys have been conducted during sewer and wastewater projects throughout the county (Hargrove 1993, 1994, 1998). A survey and archaeological testing were conducted during the course of the Falls River project (Gunn et al.1995; Lilly and Gunn 1995, 1996) and for the construction of an industrial waste landfill (Southerlin et al. 2002) and a lowlevel radioactive waste disposal site (Webb and Solis 1993). Other surveys and testing have been conducted in advance of construction and development projects (Joy and Carruth 2001; Scholl and Joy 2001; Garrow et al. 2003). Also, within the past decade, several cemeteries have been recorded and investigated (Clauser 1994a, 1994b; Webb 1997; Hargrove 1997; Southerlin 2001). Representatives of ESI have conducted several archaeological investigations in Wake County. In 2003 a survey was conducted of the proposed Jones Sausage Road corridor (Di Gregorio et al. 2003) and a cemetery delineation and architectural survey was completed in 2004 for the Fayetteville Road widening and the Penmarc Drive extension (Seibel and Turco 2004). During January 2005 a reconnaissance survey was conducted at the Horseshoe Farm Park in Wake County, which identified one archaeological site. In June of 2006 an intensive archaeological survey of Horseshoe Farm park was undertaken, which identified another 11 archaeological sites within the project area (Postlewaite and Seibel 2006). A data recovery investigation was performed at Midway Plantation (31WA1595/1595**) during the spring and summer of 2005 prior to the relocation of the main house and related outbuildings (Seibel 2005).

4.1

Forestville Road Property

4. Previous Investigations

4.2

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The goal of the investigation was to identify and assess the significance, if possible, of any historic-era archaeological sites located on the property. Work towards this goal took place in two stages, review of documentary research and field investigations. Field Survey Research Design It is important to focus on locations that are conducive to human settlement when planning and conducting a cultural resource investigation. Factors that are usually constant in locating prehistoric archaeological sites include well-drained soils, proximity to and availability of a water source, relative elevation and slope, and hardwood vegetation. Often these factors are found in predictable combinations. Due to changes in the modern environment brought about by human activity, native biotic communities are often not present. Regional soil maps and detailed topographic maps generally serve as the best tools for identifying areas considered advantageous for human settlement and resource exploitation. When modeling for archaeological site location, archaeologists work under the assumption that the tendency for human activities to occur in locations that afford ready access to desired or important resources is sufficiently patterned and consistent to be predictable (Mathis 1979:10-11), though what is considered important by people can vary considerably between spatially and temporally separated cultures. Documentary Research Initial background research was conducted by representatives of the City of Raleigh. Supplementary research was conducted by ESI at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (NC OSA), which included a search of the North Carolina Archaeological Site Files, in U.S. Census records, and through the study of old maps and aerial photography of Wake County available at the North Carolina State Archives. Field Methodology Field methods used during the investigation included a pedestrian inspection and shovel testing in areas of reduced ground visibility. Areas of clear visibility, including firebreaks and other disturbed areas, were inspected for artifacts and other signs of cultural activity. Shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter intervals for site discovery and 15-meter intervals for site investigation and site boundary delineation. Shovel tests were not excavated in areas with poor soil drainage, disturbance, or slopes over 15 percent. All shovel tests excavated measured approximately 30 centimeter in diameter and were dug to subsoil and/or sterile soil. All excavated sediments were screened through 6.35 millimeters (1/4 inch) steel mesh mounted upon portable shaker stands. Test units were excavated at one of the archaeological sites documented on the property (31WA1722/1722**). The test units measured 50-x-50 centimeters in size and were dug in arbitrary 10-centimeter levels within natural strata to sterile subsoil. Pertinent field data, including test locations, stratigraphy, environmental setting, topography, etc. were recorded for each shovel test and test unit in field notebooks carried by each crew member. The crew backfilled each shovel test and test unit and marked the location

5.1

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

with surveyor's flagging tape. Each shovel test and test unit was marked on a topographic field map of the project area. The boundaries of archaeological sites documented during the investigation and cultural features related to those sites, as well as the locations of notable physical and cultural features not recorded as formal archaeological sites, were recorded using a Trimble GeoXT Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. The GPS data was used, in part, to create figures for the report, which are to be used for informational and planning purposes, only. Corrected GPS data was supplied to the City of Raleigh. Laboratory Methodology All field notes, forms, and maps were transported to the ESI laboratory in Raleigh, North Carolina. Cultural materials were quantified and analyzed in the field, but not collected. Presently, project maps, etc., are being temporarily housed at the ESI laboratory in Raleigh, North Carolina. Vessel morphology (i.e. bowl, plate, etc.) as well as the type of fragment (basal/footing, neck, rim/lip, body, etc.) were noted whenever possible for glass and ceramics. If necessary, specific references for bottle glass, nails, and other miscellaneous items were consulted. An attempt was made to classify all historic ceramics according to published pottery types (i.e. whiteware, pearlware, stoneware, etc.). Those sherds not easily recognized were assigned a descriptive name based on surface treatment and paste. Diagnostic ceramic types and maker’s marks, when present, were used to determine relative dates for site activities. Historic artifacts were classified using Orser’s (1988) functional typology (Table 5.1). Orser’s typology provides a means for interpreting the relative importance of specific artifact classes at the site. Within this system, historic artifacts were analyzed according to material type and function, when possible. One additional category, 6. Unknown, was added to the functional typology to better capture unidentified artifacts. An additional subcategory has been added to the labor category, 5c. Household, to capture artifacts used during household work, i.e. cleaning products, etc. Table 5.1: Functional Typology (modified from Orser 1988)

1. Foodways a. Procurement – Ammunition, fishhooks, fishing weights, etc. b. Preparation – Baking pans, cooking vessels, large knives, etc. c. Service – Fine earthenware, flatware, tableware, etc. d. Storage – Coarse earthenware, stoneware, glass bottles, canning jars, bottle stoppers, etc. e. Remains – Floral, faunal 2. Clothing a. Fasteners – Buttons, eyelets, snaps, hooks, eyes, etc.

5.2

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

b. Manufacture – Needles, pins, scissors, thimbles, etc. c. Other – Shoe leather, metal shoe shanks, clothes hangers, etc. 3. Household/Structural a. Architectural/Construction – Nails, flat glass, spikes, mortar, bricks, slate, etc. b. Hardware – Hinges, tacks, nuts, bolts, staples, hooks, brackets, etc. c. Furnishings/Accessories – Stove parts, furniture pieces, lamp parts, fasteners, etc. 4. Personal a. Medicinal – Medicine bottles, droppers, etc. b. Cosmetic – Hairbrushes, hair combs, jars, etc. c. Recreational – Smoking pipes, toys, musical instruments, souvenirs, etc. d. Monetary – Coins, etc. e. Decorative – Jewelry, hairpins, hatpins, spectacles, etc. f. Other – Pocketknives, fountain pens, pencils, ink wells, etc. 5. Labor a. Agricultural – Barbed wire, horse shoes, harness buckles, hoes, plow blades, scythe blades, etc. b. Industrial – Tools, etc. c. Household – Household cleaning products, heating coal, etc. 6. Unknown

Archaeological Site Descriptions Site descriptions contain a variety of information generally based on fields included on North Carolina Archaeological Site Forms, much of it presented in a succinct bullet format. Categories in the bullet format include: Site size; topography; elevation; environmental setting; soil type; nearest water; surface visibility; field procedures; cultural affiliation; and site function. Each site description also includes a detailed description of the work conducted at the site and the type of materials, etc. encountered. Also given are a listing of the artifacts recovered from the site separated by component and context and recommendations for the site (no further work, avoidance, testing, etc.). When reporting the number of shovel tests excavated at site under the field procedures heading, all shovel tests used to both test the integrity of subsurface deposits and to delineate the boundaries of a site are included. For example, if a shovel test contains cultural material, but two tests on either side of the positive test do not contain cultural material, they are included in the shovel test count as they were used to delineate the boundary of the site. Site Definitions and Evaluations Archaeological sites are defined as discrete and potentially interpretable loci of cultural material (Plog et al. 1978). For the present study, an archaeological site is defined as a concentration of

5.3

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

three or more artifacts (older than 50 years) within 30 meters of each other that appear to represent either short or long-term activity. Isolated finds are defined as one to two artifacts recovered with no additional cultural material recovered from either the ground surface or from other shovel tests within 30 meters. With the exception of diagnostic projectile points or prehistoric ceramic sherds, isolated finds yield less than the minimum data sufficient to forward statements concerning prehistoric land use and/or temporal affiliation. National Register Eligibility Criteria In order for a site, building, etc. to be considered a significant historic property, it must meet one or more of four specific criteria established in 36 CFR Part 60, National Register, and 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties. The evaluation of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site for inclusion on the National Register rests largely on its research potential, that is, its ability to contribute important information through preservation and/or additional study (Criterion D). The National Register criteria for evaluation are stated as follows: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and; Criterion A: Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our history; Criterion B: Properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Criterion C: Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and Criterion D: Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in prehistory or history. Archaeological Sites While many archaeological sites are recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion D, this is somewhat ill-defined. In order to clarify the issue of site importance, the following attribute evaluations add a measure of specificity that can be used in assessing site significance and National Register eligibility: 

Site Integrity – Does the site contain intact cultural deposits or is it disturbed?;

5.4

Forestville Road Property

  

6. Results of Investigations

Preservation – Does the site contain material suited to in-depth analysis and/or absolute dating such as preserved features, botanical and/or faunal remains, or human skeletal remains?; Uniqueness – Is the information contained in the site redundant in comparison to that available from similar sites, or do the remains provide a unique or insightful perspective on research concerns of regional importance? Relevance to Current and Future Research – Would additional work at this site contribute to our knowledge of the past? Would preservation of the site protect valuable information for future studies? While this category is partly a summary of the above considerations, it also recognizes that a site may provide valuable information regardless of its integrity, preservation, or uniqueness.

Nomenclature Archaeological sites in North Carolina are most often discussed and recorded using the standardized nomenclature provided by the OSA. In order to maintain consistency, the following functional site designations utilized by the OSA are used in the site descriptions below: Prehistoric:

Limited Activity Lithic Workshop Lithic Quarry Isolated Artifact Find Short Term Habitation Shell Midden

Long Term Habitation Mound/Habitation Site Mound (Isolated) Human Skeletal Remains Fish Weir Other

Historic:

Domestic Dump (Waste Disposal) Transportation Unmarked Cemetery Governmental

Cemetery Commercial Industrial Religious

5.5

Agricultural Entertainment Military Other

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

5.6

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS

The initial fieldwork associated with the investigation of the Forestville Road Property took the form of a formal site visit in with a City of Raleigh representative. Two areas containing the remains of historic-era (e.g. pre-1950) occupation that had been initially identified by the City of Raleigh were visited. More intensive pedestrian inspection occurred across the entirety of the Forestville Road Property. These portions of the investigation identified two areas that were subjected to more intensive survey in the form of shovel testing. A total of 86 shovel tests were dug in the two areas, which resulted in the documentation of two multi-component prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, 31WA1772/1772** and 31WA1773/1773**, and an historic road, 31WA1774** (Figure 6.1). Four formal 50-x-50 centimeter test units were excavated at site 31WA1772/1772** to assist in assessing the site’s National Register eligibility status. In addition to the three archaeological sites, a number of additional cultural features were documented that were not formally recorded as archaeological sites. These include a small quarry and a spring house. 31WA1772/1772** Site Size: 5,400 square meters Topography: Upland slope Elevation: 270 feet amsl Environmental Setting: Forested Soil Type: Louisburg loamy sand, 10-15% slopes (LoD); Louisburg-Wedowee complex, eroded, 6-10% slopes (LwC2), and Wake soils, 10-25% slopes (WkE) Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of unnamed tributary of Harris Creek, 30 meters south Surface Visibility: Poor Field Procedure: Pedestrian inspection, shovel testing (n=27), and test units (n=4) Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric – Unknown Lithic; Historic – 19th to Mid-20th Century Site Function: Prehistoric – Limited Activity; Historic – Domestic/Agricultural (Tenant) Site Integrity: Good Site Description: Preliminary research and field inspection by representatives of the City of Raleigh identified the remains of a historic period house site and agricultural complex located approximately in the center of the Forestville Road Property. The study of aerial photography from 1949 revealed that the area once contained at least two buildings (a house to the northwest and an outbuilding to the southeast) surrounded by a mostly cleared yard and/or pasture accessed by a road that led east from Forestville Road and which cut through the area, allowing access to a series of agricultural fields to the north and northeast. As of 1965, the house was still standing, but the surrounding yard was becoming overgrown and the fields immediately adjacent had been abandoned. By 1971, the entire area was completely overgrown. The aerial photographs can be seen on Figures 6.2-6.3. Field investigations of the site by ESI included pedestrian inspection and subsurface probing to identify physical features associated with the site such as road beds, foundation piers, and surface

6.1

Quarry

31WA1773/1773**

31WA1772/1772** Red Barn

Spring House

Log Cabin

House

Large Outbuilding

Road Bed

Feed Shed

Spring? Outhouse?

*Project Location *Location and Extent is Approximate. 0

250

500

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919 212-1707 Fax

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Site Locations

Forestville Road Property City of Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina

File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\2010\065\GIS\mxd\Fig6.1SiteLocs.mxd Printed: 10/05/2010 4:28 pm

Project: ER10-065.00 Date: Drwn/Chkd: Figure:

Oct. 2010 CD/SS 6.1

Project Location (Approximate)

1949 aerial photography of property (N.C. State Archives).

Project Location (Approximate)

1954 aerial photography of property (N.C. State Archives).

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Aerial Photography

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.2

Project Location (Approximate)

1971 aerial photography of property (N.C. State Archives).

Project Location (Approximate)

Ca. 2010 aerial photography of property (Google 2010).

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Aerial Photography

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.3

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

artifact scatters, shovel testing to delineate the boundary of the site and identify potential activity areas and artifact patterning, and the excavation of four 50-x-50 centimeter test units to investigate the condition of subsurface archaeological deposits pursuant to determining site significance. Figure 6.4 is a plan of the site. During a field visit to the property with a representative of the City of Raleigh, an abandoned road bed visible on mid-century aerial photography was encountered. During the pedestrian inspection of the site, the route of this former road leading from the southwest corner of the property through the center of the site was followed and its location recorded with a GPS unit. A spur or driveway leading from the road to the western edge of the site was also documented. The route of a spur that once ran to the southeast to a small field complex visible on the 1949 aerial photograph could not be identified on the ground. The road bed was recorded as site 31WA1774** and is described in more detail, below. Figure 6.5, top shows a general view of the site. A collapsed chimney and foundation piers associated with the former house (Figure 6.5, bottom) and foundation piers associated with a large barn or complex of outbuildings (Figure 6.6, top) were found in the center of the site, separated by a section of the roadbed mentioned above. To the southwest of the former house was a grassy area that suggested the possible location of a well or outhouse (Figure 6.6, bottom). Also identified during the pedestrian inspection was a small, stone-lined spring to the west of the site at the base of a slope where it intersects with the floodplain of the unnamed tributary of Harris Creek, which runs approximately north-south through the property. Based on the interview with Roger Montague, pedestrian inspection within the east-west running tributary also identified the possible location for a second spring to the south of the site. Between the stone-lined spring and the house, a small quarry was found in an outcropping of granite, evidenced by a series of drill holes. The two springs and the quarry are discussed later in this chapter. The alignment of foundation stones at the former location of the house suggested that it had consisted of several rooms (Figure 6.7). Based on the location of the collapsed chimney, the southeastern section of the house most likely was where the log cabin sat. It would have opened up onto a porch or enclosed hallway along the north side of the house, and the western portion of the house would have been an addition containing one or more rooms. The log cabin has space in the peak of the roof that may have been used as part of the living space, and it is likely that the western addition of the house had a similar loft space in the peak of its room. The alignment of the foundation stones for the barn also suggests that it was comprised of multiple sections built over a number of years (Figure 6.8). The southern half of the barn appears to have been aligned roughly north-south, while the northern half had more of a northwest-southeast alignment. Shovel testing was conducted at 15-meter intervals following a grid established over the site with the arbitrary datum of 1000N 1000E located to the northeast of the former house (see Figure 6.4). A total of 27 shovel tests were excavated, 13 of which contained artifacts. Negative shovel tests bounded the site to the north, east, and west, while a steep slope down to an unnamed creek

6.2

985N

1000N

1015N

31WA1772/1772** 1030E LARGE OUTBUILDING

1015E

SPRING

HOUSE 1000E

985E

970E

955E

QUARRY

Positive Shovel Test Negative Shovel Test Old Road Bed Drainage Slope Direction 15 30

SPRING HOUSE

31WA1774** Meters Source: ESI Field Data, 2010. Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY OF HARRIS CREEK

Site Plan-31WA1772/1772** and 31WA1774**

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Oct 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.4

General view of 31WA1772/1772**, facing north towards tenant house.

Collapsed Chimney

Test Unit 1

View of foundation stones (to front) and collapsed chimney (to rear) of tenant house at 31WA1772/1772**.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Site Photos-31WA1772/1772**

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.5

Test Unit 4

View of foundation pier and in situ artifacts in barn at 31WA1772/1772**. Note intact bottles and jars on ground surface.

View of grassy area indicating possible location of outhouse To south of tenant house at 31WA1772/1772**.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Site Photos-31WA1772/1772**

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.6

TU 3 Chimney Rubble

TU 1

Approximate Outline of House

Meters

Source: ESI Field Data, 2010.

Test Unit 1 Root Mat Stratum I Stratum II

Stratum I: 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Sand Stratum II: 2.5Y6/4 Light Yellow Brown and 7.5YR 6/8 Reddish Yellow Sand

North Wall Profile

Test Unit 3 Root Mat Stratum I Stratum II

Stratum I: 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Sand Stratum II: 2.5Y6/4 Light Yellow Brown Sand

North Wall Profile 0

20 Centimeters

Source: ESI Field Data, 2010.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 7220 Financial Way, Suite 100 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 (904) 470-2200 (904) 470-2112 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com P:\Projects\2009\ER09-056 Creek at Willowick\Corel\Fig 6.2.cdr; 10/09/09; 12:45 pm

House Plan and TU Profiles-31WA1772/1772**

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.7

TU 2

Approximate Outline of Outbuilding TU 4

Meters

Source: ESI Field Data, 2010.

Test Unit 2

Stratum I

Stratum I: 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Sand Stratum II: 10YR6/4 Light Yellow Brown

Stratum II

North Wall Profile

Test Unit 4 Cast Iron Mason Jar Stratum I Stratum II

Stratum I: 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Sand Stratum II: 10YR6/4 Light Yellow Brown Sand 0

North Wall Profile

20 Centimeters

Source: ESI Field Data, 2010.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

Outbuilding Plan and TU Profiles-31WA1772/1772**

7220 Financial Way, Suite 100 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 (904) 470-2200 (904) 470-2112 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com P:\Projects\2009\ER09-056 Creek at Willowick\Corel\Fig 6.2.cdr; 10/09/09; 12:45 pm

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Oct 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.8

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

bounded the site on the north. The northern and eastern boundary of the site mirrored the shape of the boundary between the yard and the agricultural field seen on the 1949 aerial photography. Four 50-x-50 centimeter test units (TUs 1-4) were also dug, two within the footprint of the house foundation and two within the footprint of the barn foundation (see Figures 6.4 and 6.7-6.8). The purpose of these tests were to try to determine the possible construction dates and functions of different parts of the two buildings as well as to aid in the assessment of the archaeological integrity of the site. The two test units were placed within the footprint of the house, TU 1 and TU 3. TU 1 was placed within the footprint of what was likely an addition to the house. The types of artifacts recovered from the unit included nine cut nails, nine wire nails, sherds of whiteware representing dishes, light bulb and lamp glass, bottle and jar glass, and a shell inlay for a snap or button. TU 3 was placed within what appeared to be the footprint of log cabin portion of the house. This unit yielded three cut nails, bottle and jar glass, as well as three artifacts associated with furniture (a cap or finial, a drawer pull, and a cut tack). Two test units were placed within the footprint of the large outbuilding. TU 2, which was placed at the northwest corner of the northern section of the building footprint yielded three cut nails, four wire nails, and a variety of household items including whiteware sherds, a shard from a blue milk glass bowl, a crown bottle cap, lamp glass, and a shard from a medicine or cosmetic bottle. TU 4 was placed along the western edge of the southern section of the building footprint. This unit yielded two wire nails, some household items (whiteware sherds and jar and bottle glass), a piece of decorative iron, as well as a fragment from a paint or oil can and a section of cast iron plate, the latter two of which were classified as labor-related (Orser 5). Artifact counts from the positive shovel tests ranged from a low of one artifact in four of the positive shovel tests to a high of 24 artifacts, encountered in ST 1000N 1000E. A total of 81 artifacts were recovered from the 13 positive shovel tests, with an average number of artifacts per positive shovel test of 6.3. A total of 302 artifacts were recovered from the four test units, with a high of 141 recovered in TU 1 and a low of 30 in TU 2. A wide range of artifacts were recovered from the shovel tests, test units, and ground surface, covering all five of the main Orser artifact categories and 12 of the 20 subcategories. In general, the main artifact categories represented were service and storage wares such as plates, bowls, canning jars, and soda bottles and architectural artifacts such as nails. More personal items included snaps and buttons, medicine and/or cosmetic bottles, and furniture items, while items of daily work included Clorox bottles and tools such as a paint or oil can and a plow blade. Figure 6.9 shows selected artifacts from the site. A small prehistoric component was also documented at the site. It consisted of one tertiary rhyolite flake recovered from ST 985N 1030E and one secondary rhyolite flake found in TU 3. No other prehistoric artifacts were recovered at the site. Soil encountered in the shovel tests and test units typically consisted of 5-25 centimeters of gray brown to dark gray brown sandy loam over yellow brown to light yellow brown silt sand or

6.3

H. I.

Artifacts A. Whiteware dishes (refit base sherds and rim sherds) (Orser 1c.) - TU 1 B. Molded glass bowl rim (Orser 1c.) - ST 1000N 985E C. Fiestaware sherds (Orser 1c.) - TU 1 D. Milk glass canning lid (Orser 1d.) - ST 970N 1000E E. BALL canning jar (Orser 1d.) - TU 3 F. Eyelets from shoe (Orser 2c.) - ST 970N 1045E G. Shell button (Orser 2a.) - TU 1 H. Wire nail (top) and cut nail (bottom) (Orser 3a.) - TU 1 I. Avon cold cream container (Orser 4b.) - Surface near house J. McElree’s Cardui bottle (note label to right) (Orser 4a.) - Surface near outbuilding K. CLOROX bottle shard (Orser 5c.) - TU 1 L. Linked chain (Orser 5) - ST 985N 985E

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Artifact Photo-31WA1772/1772**

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.9

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

sandy silt. The sand in the tests is all derived from decaying granite and consisted of grains of quartz and feldspar. Soil profiles from the test units are presented in Figure 6.7-6.8, bottom. Diagnostic Artifacts: The investigation recovered numerous artifacts that were analyzed in an attempt to date the period of occupation for the site. These included nails and various types of glass artifacts. Table 6.1: Summary of artifacts recovered from shovel tests. 1. Foodways (n=38) c. Service (n=10) d. Storage (n=5) 2. Clothing a. Fasteners (n=1) c. Other (n=4) 3. Household/Structural a. Architectural/Construction (n=13) c. Furnishings/Accessories (n=1) 4. Personal (n=1) 5. Labor (n=1) a. Agricultural (n=1) 6. Unknown (n=6)

Curved glass Whiteware, Fiestaware Jar glass, milk glass canning jar lid liners, stoneware Shell button Shoe leather with eyelets Wire nails, asbestos shingle, asphalt shingles Light bulb glass Curved milk glass Linked chain Plow blade Tin sheet metal, UID iron, flat glass

Table 6.2: Summary of artifacts recovered from test units. 1. Foodways (n=96) c. Service (n=17) d. Storage (n=90) 2. Clothing a. Fasteners (n=2) 3. Household/Structural a. Architectural/Construction (n=45) b. (n=1) c. Furnishings/Accessories (n=11) 4. Personal (n=5) 5. Labor b. Industrial (n=2) c. Household (n=3) 6. Unknown (n=30) Unknown (n=30)

Curved glass Whiteware, blue milk glass bowl Bottle glass, jar glass, tin canning jar lid, crown bottle cap Brass snap, shell inlay of snap or button Cut nails, wire nails, window glass, possible brick fragment Cut tack Drawer pull, cap or finial, decorative iron, lamp glass, light bulb glass Curved milk glass, curved cobalt blue glass Paint or oil can, curved cast iron plate Clorox Sheet iron, sheet tin, UID iron, possible mortar, plastic

6.4

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

Nails can be used to approximately date the period of construction of a building, though nails from demolished buildings were often reused and buildings maintained over a long timeframe can contain more than one nail type. Machine-headed cut nails replaced hand-headed cut nails in the 1820s and 1830s, comprising over 90 percent of nail production in the country by the mid1830s (Adams 2002). Wire nails did not become extensively produced or used in the United States until the 1890s, during which time the manufacture of cut nails fell from over 90 percent of the total nail production in 1890 to less than 20 percent in 1900 and under 10 percent by 1910. It should be noted that cut nails are still produced, though in limited quantities relative to wire nails, and that wire nails began to be produced in Britain during the 1860s, much earlier than in the United States. In regards to the house, the presence of both wire and cut nails in TU 1 but only cut nails in TU 3 suggest that the eastern portion of the house was older and that the western portion was a later addition. The lack of any wire nails in TU 3 suggests a construction date prior to the 1880s, while the even split between the two types in TU 1 suggests a construction date in the 1890s (Adams 2002). Both test units in the large outbuilding yielded wire nails, while only TU 2 contained cut nails, suggesting that the northern portion of the building was the earlier construction. Based on nail types, the original construction of the large outbuilding was likely no earlier than the mid-1890s. None of the cut nails from 31WA1772/1772** were in a good enough state of preservation to determine the method of head manufacture, so it was not possible to determine if any hand-headed nails were recovered. In addition to the jar glass recovered from the shovel tests and test units, numerous intact canning jars are present on the ground surface at the site. All of the jars on the ground surface bear some version of the Ball brand name, and embossed jar glass shards from the subsurface tests all appear to be Ball brand as well. The Ball Corporation was originally founded in 1880 by Frank and Edmund Ball as the Ball Brothers Glass Manufacturing Company. In 1884, the company began making mason-style canning jars, which it continued until 1993, when Ball Corporation spun its canning business off as Alltrista Corporation, now known as Jarden Corporation, though the Ball name is still used (www.fundinguniverse.com 2010). Two fragments of milk glass canning lids were recovered from the shovel testing. Milk glass canning lids appear to span a time period from 1869 (Steen 2003), when milk glass was first introduced, to around 1915. Two sherds of Fiestaware were recovered, one blue and one orange, both from ST 985N 1015E. Fiestaware is a brightly colored ceramic dinnerware introduced in 1936 by the Homer Laughlin China Company (Lubar and Kendrick 2001). Recovered from the ground surface near the large outbuilding was an intact panel medicine bottle bearing the inscription on one side “Chattanooga Medicine Co.” and McElree’s Cardui” on the other. McElree’s Cardui was introduced by the Reverend R.I. McElree in 1879 for the relief of menstrual pain. He reportedly obtained the formula from a Native American herbal tonic. In 1882, he sold the rights to the Chattanooga Medicine Company, which produced the tonic through the 1930s. The ingredients in the 1920s included blessed thistle, golden seal, and alcohol (Van West 1998; Wray 1996). An old McElree’s Cardui label is shown on Figure 6.9.

6.5

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

The house did have electrical service before it was abandoned, as evidenced by a junction box and conduit within the house footprint and drum-type electrical clothes washer with a white enamel exterior standing to the southeast of the large outbuilding. Credit for the first electricalpowered washing machine, the drum-type Thor introduced in 1908, is typically given to Alva J. Fisher (Bellis 2010). By the 1930s, the agitation mechanism had been enclosed within a cabinet, the general style still in use today (Wikipedia 2010). A small milk glass container, likely for cold cream, impressed with Avon on the bottom was recovered near the house. While the foundation for Avon, the California Perfume Company, dates back to 1886 and David H. McConnell, the company did not begin marketing under the Avon name until 1928. The company became officially known as Avon Products, Inc., in 1939 (Avon Products, Inc. 2009). It was interesting that no shards of amethyst glass were recovered from the site. Amethyst glass, also known as solarized glass, is the result of manganese being used to create “clear” or colorless glass around the turn of the twentieth century. When exposed for long periods of time to sunlight, the manganese in the glass undergoes a chemical reaction, which results in the glass obtaining a purplish tint. Amethyst glass was produced from ca. 1880 to 1914, a period of time that overlaps with the apparent period of occupation of the site based on the presence of other artifacts. Summary and Recommendations: This site contains the remains of a tenant occupation dating from the late nineteenth through the mid-twentieth century. Artifacts recovered from the site suggest a beginning to the occupation during the 1800s based on the presence of cut nails and after 1869 based on the presence of milk glass canning lid shards. The occupation is known to have ended by the 1950s based on informant interview. The site appears to contain good archaeological preservation. The foundations of the house and the large outbuilding are mostly intact, suggesting that there was little disturbance of the subsurface during the demolition and removal of the two structures. Additionally, there are many intact canning jars present on the ground surface, also indicative of a lack of mechanical disturbance to the site. Lastly, although the NRCS soil map suggests that the site is eroded, the soil profiles encountered in the shovel tests and test units suggest that the site has not been significantly impacted by soil erosion. This site is recommended potentially eligible for listing in the National Register as it could have the potential to yield significant information pertaining to the transition from slavery to tenancy and/or the lifeways of African-American tenants in Wake County during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is recommended that additional research be conducted to determine, if possible, the former occupants of the house. The U.S. Census research presented in Chapter 3 would be used as a starting point, but any surviving Upchurch family records and additional family interviews would be particularly useful. Additional close-interval shovel testing and the excavation of limited number of formal 1-x-1 meter excavation units would be useful in better identifying patterns of artifact distributions and the locations of possible activity areas, possibly identifying

6.6

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

subsurface features, and the collection of additional time and function diagnostic artifacts to better determine the periods of occupation, including if it extends into the Antebellum period, the types of activities that occurred at the site, and insights into the stability or changing of the lifeways of the various inhabitants. The foundation elements of the house and barn could be cleared to better reveal the outlines of the structures and better guide the placement of formal units. Additionally, the site retains cultural features and physical characteristics that would allow it to be used for cultural interpretation within an educational park setting. Specific recommendations related to the potential educational aspects of this site are addressed in Chapter 7. 31WA1773/1773** (James Upchurch Site) Site Size: 14,440 square meters Topography: Ridge and ridge slope Elevation: 280 feet amsl Environmental Setting: Maintained lawn and forest Soil Type: Vance sandy loam, eroded, 2-6% and 6-10% slopes (VaB2/VaC2); Louisburg loamy sand, 10-15% slopes (LoD) Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Harris Creek, 100 meters east Surface Visibility: Poor Field Procedure: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n=59) Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric – Unknown Lithic; Historic – 19th to Late 20th Century Site Function: Prehistoric – Isolated Find; Historic – Domestic/Agricultural/Industrial Site Integrity: Poor Site Description: Preliminary research and field inspection by representatives of the City of Raleigh determined that this site was the location of the James Upchurch house. Archaeological investigations were undertaken to determine the areal extent of the occupation, identify, if possible, the former locations of structures such as the house and outbuildings, and determine the National Register eligibility status of the site. Aerial photographs indicate that the main house was still standing in 1965 but had been demolished by 1971 (Figures 6.2-6.3). According to Roger Montague, his family demolished the house in the mid-1960s due to extensive termite damage. All of the other outbuildings were demolished as well, save from the barn built by Joe Montague. The site was vacant until the 1990s, when two single-wide trailers and a manufactured home were placed on the property. All three structures were removed by 2007. The plan of the site shows the location of positive and negative shovel tests, currently standing structures, the approximate former location of the Upchurch house, and the former locations of late twentieth and early twenty-first century structures (Figure 6.10). Roger Montague produced a not-to-scale schematic map of the buildings that were standing on the property prior to their demolition by his parents in the mid-1960s, most of which were located to the north and east of the Upchurch house. Views of the site can be found on Figures 6.11-6.12.

6.7

9 70 N

1 00 0N

1 03 0N

1 06 0N 1060E

OAK HIL

L DRIVE

1030E RED BARN

PUMP HOUSE

1000E PLAY HOUSE

DRIV

EWAY

970E

Positive Shovel Test Negative Shovel Test Former Modern Bldg. Drainage Slope Direction 15 30

FOREST VIL

LE ROAD

Meters Source: ESI Field Data, 2010. Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Site Plan-31WA1773/1773**

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Oct 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.10

General view of 31WA1773/1773**, facing north from paved driveway.

View of former location of Upchurch house, facing northwest.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Site Photos-31WA1773/1773**

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.11

View of red barn in northeast portion of 31WA1773/1773**, facing northeast.

View of pile of rough and cut granite stones near northern edge of 31WA1773/1773**, facing north.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Site Photos-31WA1773/1773**

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.12

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

Field investigations of the site by ESI included pedestrian inspection and subsurface probing to identify physical features associated with the site such as foundation elements and surface artifact scatters and shovel testing to delineate the boundary of the site and identify potential activity areas and artifact patterning. No test units were dug at this site as no deposits were encountered during the shovel testing that appeared to warrant additional investigation. Fifty-nine shovel tests were dug on a 15-meter interval gird with an arbitrary datum of 1000N 1000E (see Figure 6.10). Of these, 28 contained cultural materials, typically late nineteenth century through modern debris but including an isolated prehistoric artifact, a piece of quartz debitage. A total of 182 historic artifacts were collected, with an average density of 6.5 artifacts per positive shovel test. This density, though, is skewed by the recovery of 50 artifacts from a single shovel test, ST 1030N 1000E, as well as four other positive shovel tests that contained between 12 and 26 artifacts, each, one of which encountered only the shattered remains of a mayonnaise jar (ST 1060N 1030E). Artifacts were found across most of the site, except within the southeastern quadrant and along the southern edge near the paved driveway. The recovered artifacts consisted mainly of broken glass, ceramics, and nails, but personal items such as a coin button and a doll part were recovered, as were a few agricultural and household labor items. Figure 6.13 shows selected artifacts recovered from the site. Table 6.3: Summary of artifacts recovered from shovel tests. 1. Foodways (n=56) c. Service (n=15) d. Storage (n=50) e. Remains (n=1) 2. Clothing a. Fasteners (n=1) 3. Household/Structural a. Architectural/Construction (n=32) b. Hardware (n=1) c. Furnishings/Accessories (n=4) 4. Personal (n=2) c. (n=1) 5. Labor a. Agricultural (n=1) c. Household (n=2) 6. Unknown (n=16)

Curved glass Whiteware, molded glass bowl, glass tumbler Stoneware, jar glass, bottle glass, milk glass canning jar lids, zinc canning jar lid Oyster shell (Note: May not be food item) Coin button Cut nails, wire nails, window glass, brick, concrete, mortar, asbestos shingle Hinge bracket Lamp glass Cobalt blue glass, milk glass Porcelain doll part Iron plow blade Coal UID iron, UID iron hardware (Orser 3 or 5), melted glass, flat glass

Despite the fact that the site used to contain a two-story house and numerous outbuildings, construction-related artifacts, specifically nails, were not very common. Only 10 nails of any type were recovered, along with 16 shards of window glass. Most of these artifacts were recovered along the 1015N line on the shovel test grid, which runs to the south of where the James Upchurch house was located. It appears likely that the lack of these artifact types is

6.8

E. F.

Artifacts A. Whiteware dishes (base sherds) (Orser 1c.) - ST 985N 1015E B. Rockingham sherd (Orser 1c.) - ST 1030N 1000E C. Transferprint whiteware sherd (Orser 1c.) - 1030N 1015E D. DUKE’S mayonnaise jar base (Orser 1d.) - ST 1060N 1030E E. BALL canning jar (Orser 1d.) - ST 1060N 985E F. Soda bottle (Orser 1d.) - ST 955N 1030E G. Cuprous coin button (Orser 2a.) - ST 1015N 955E H. Wire nail (left) and cut nail right(Orser 3a.) - ST 1030N 1000E I. Hinge (Orser 3b.) - ST 1015N 1015E J. CLOROX bottle shard (Orser 5c.) - ST 1060N 985E K. Unknown hardware (Orser 3 or 5) - ST 1045N 1000E

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Artifact Photo-31WA1773/1773**

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.13

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

related to the mechanical removal of the buildings. When buildings are abandoned and left to decay in place, typically large numbers of nails and window glass shards are left behind. Only the high artifact count in ST 1030N 1000E, in an area noted by Roger Montague as being behind the James Upchurch house, gave any archaeological suggestion of the former location of any previously present structure, that of the stand-alone kitchen. Artifacts from this test were recovered in a very dark soil matrix suggestive of a midden, a dense deposit of domestic refuse and organic rich soil, and included whiteware, stoneware, curved glass (bottle and/or jar glass), milk glass canning jar lid fragments, and an oyster shell, as well as eight of the 10 nails and six of the 16 shards of window glass recovered from the site. It is suspected that the three positive shovel tests in the southeastern corner of the site are related to the cotton gin that was once located on the property (see Figures 3.1 and 6.10), as it seems probably that a semi-industrial operation such as a gin would be located away from the domestic occupation. Roger Montague conveyed that he thought this was the area where the gin had been. There were no artifacts recovered from these tests, though, that can confirm this supposition. STs 1030N 1015E and 1030N 1060E encountered a terra cotta drain pipe running east-west from near the red barn down slope towards the unnamed tributary of Harris Creek. This pipe is interpreted as a part of an abandoned septic drain field. Soil conditions varied across the site. In general, shovel testing encountered a soil profile consisting of 5-15 centimeters of gray brown to dark gray brown sandy loam over 5-15 centimeters of yellow brown to yellow gray brown sandy loam over dark yellow brown to strong brown clay subsoil. However, some shovel tests encountered soil profiles that lacked clay subsoil, instead the tests encountered a deep profile of yellow brown silt sand. Cultural deposits, though, were typically only recovered from the uppermost soil zone. An atypical soil profile was encountered in ST 1030N 1000E, which contained very dark gray brown sandy loam in the upper most soil zone and was located near the former location of the kitchen according to Roger Montague’s sketch map (see Figure 3.2). Also, STs 1045N 985E, encountered clay subsoil at or less than 5 centimeters below the ground surface. These shovel tests were all located in the general location of the James Upchurch house and are interpreted as representing the removal of the uppermost soil layer during the mechanical demolition of the house in the mid-1960s. Diagnostic Artifacts: Only two cut nails and two wire nails, as well as six unidentified nails were recovered from the site. The presence of cut nails implies that at least the house and some of the outbuildings had a pre-1890 construction date, while the presence of wire nails is indicative of post-1890 construction and/or renovation. One sherd of stoneware with a glaze very similar to the Rockingham style was recovered. The original Rockingham pottery was made from 1826-1842, but the style was also used by English potters who came to the United States in the nineteenth century. It is likely that this sherd is from vessel where the manufacturer was attempting to copy the Rockingham glaze.

6.9

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

A fragment of a jar bearing the partial inscription “BAL” was recovered, most likely representing a caning jar made by the Ball Corporation, which began making canning jars in 1884 (www.fundinguniverse.com 2010). Two fragments of milk glass canning lids were recovered from the shovel testing. Milk glass canning lids appear to span a time period from 1869 (Steen 2003), when milk glass was first introduced, to around 1915. A fragment from a zinc canning jar lid was also recovered. The original Mason canning jar was patented in 1858 by John L. Mason, which used a zinc lid, and zinc was used for lids well into the twentieth century. ST 1060N 1030E encountered part of a shattered Duke’s mayonnaise jar. Duke’s mayonnaise was created by Eugenia Duke in 1917, and the C.F. Sauer Company has been producing the product since 1929 (CF Sauer 2010). Summary and Recommendations: Site 31WA1773/1773** contains the remains of the James Upchurch and William Ivan Upchurch occupations, which date to the late nineteenth through mid-twentieth centuries, as well as agricultural and domestic occupations that continued until the early twenty-first century. In addition to the two-story James Upchurch house, the site once held nearly 10 agricultural, industrial, and domestic outbuildings, two modern single-wide trailers and a manufactured home, among others. This site appears to have little archaeological integrity. The mechanical demolition of the James Upchurch house and associated outbuildings in the 1960s by the Montagues and the construction and removal of the two trailers, manufactured home, and associated outbuildings in the 1990s and 2000s appears to have disturbed the artifact bearing strata at the site. Although artifacts that apparently date to the James Upchurch and Ivan Upchurch family occupations were recovered during the course of investigations, the temporal affiliation of most of the artifacts could not be differentiated between the different Upchurch occupations or the late twentieth century occupations. Additionally, there was little observable patterning to the artifacts suggestive of cultural activities apart from household artifacts recovered in the area that once held the kitchen to the rear of the Upchurch house. While the probably location of the cotton gin was identified, there were no artifacts recovered or other cultural features found that could be definitively associated with a cotton gin. Due to all of these factors, this site does not have the potential to yield significant new information pertaining to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century use of the site by members of the Upchurch family. It is recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register. However, the site does retain features and is connected to known aspects of the Upchurch family that would allow it to be used for cultural interpretation within an educational park setting due to its good preservation. Specific recommendations related to the potential educational aspects of this site are addressed in Chapter 7. 31WA1774** (Freddie’s Path) Site Size: 1,400 square meters Topography: Upland slope Elevation: Variable from 190-230 feet amsl Environmental Setting: Forested

6.10

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

Soil Type: Louisburg loamy sand, 10-15% slopes (LoD); Louisburg-Wedowee complex, eroded, 6-10% slopes (LwC2), Wake soils, 10-25% slopes (WkE), and Wedowee sandy loam, eroded, 610% slopes (WmC2) Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Harris Creek, crossed by site Surface Visibility: Good Field Procedure: Pedestrian inspection Cultural Affiliation: Historic – 19th to Mid-20th Century Site Function: Historic – Transportation Site Integrity: Good Site Description: The route of an abandoned dirt farm road running from the southwest corner of the property to the tenant house site (31WA1772/1772**) was first noted by a representative of the City of Raleigh and further investigated by ESI. This road is visible on the historic aerial photography of the property running from the southside of the Upchurch residence, around the headwaters of a small unnamed tributary, east towards the tenant house site, and then north and east to the fields and pastures that were located in the eastern portion of the property (see Figures 6.2-6.3). The road bed varies from barely visible to deeply incised, depending on its location on the landscape, and is approximately 15 feet wide (Figure 6.14). While the road appears to have once run across the bed of the unnamed tributary of Harris Creek, the creek is now incised 3-5 feet below the base of the road. Although the road once ran north and east from the tenant house site to the now abandoned and overgrown fields, its route could not be followed past the tenant house site as it was obscured by large numbers of fallen trees and thick leaf litter. A spur of the road splits off to the north after it crosses the unnamed tributary of Harris Creek and runs towards the western side of the tenant house site. A spur that once ran to a field or pasture to the south of the property that is visible on historic aerial photography could not be identified in the field. In a conversation with Roger Montague, he recalled that the road was once known as “Freddie’s Path” when he was a child. It was almost certainly named at that time after Fred Trice, who lived in the tenant house in the 1950s with his wife. Summary and Recommendations: This abandoned road bed once served as the main access route from Forestville Road and the Upchurch residence (31WA1773/1773**) to the tenant house site (31WA1772/1772**) and the fields to the north and east. It is in relatively good condition, saving the presence of large trees growing in the road cut. Although intact, this road does not appear to have served as a significant local or regional transportation route. Rather, it represents a well preserved example of an old, unpaved farm road from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It does not have the potential to yield significant new information pertaining to the history of the area or the construction of old roads. It is recommended not eligible for the National Register. However, the road does have the potential to be used for cultural interpretation within an educational park setting due to its good preservation. Specific recommendations related to the potential educational aspects of this site are addressed in Chapter 7.

6.11

General view of roadbed, facing west from unnamed tributary of Harris Creek.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Site Photo-31WA1774**

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.14

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

Other Notable Features Stone-lined Spring At the base of an upland slope where it encounters the narrow floodplain of the unnamed tributary of Harris Creek is located a stone-lined spring (Figure 6.15, top). The area surrounded by the stones measures approximately 2-x-3 feet in size. The spring was running at the time of investigation, with a sheet flow of water running out of the spring down slope towards the creek. Given the distance this spring house is from the tenant house, it does not appear to have been the water source of the residents. Additionally, Roger Montague did not remember having ever seen the stone lined spring. It may be that the stones surrounding the stream were placed there for decoration, not for any functional purpose. Spring In a conversation with Roger Montague, he remembered talk of a spring being located along the unnamed tributary that runs close to the tenant house. Inspection within the unnamed tributary did locate what could be interpreted as a spring just to the south of the tenant house. At this location, the deeply incised stream bed encounters a steep cut over 5 feet high, above which the tributary runs dry and below which the tributary contained flowing water. Although the location was filled with sediment at the time of investigation, it would likely be fairly easy to dig out the sediment to allow clean water to collect. Although not investigated, it is possible that the remains of a structure designed to allow for the collection of clean water are present underneath the accumulated sediment. Granite Quarry Located approximately between the tenant house (31WA1772/1772**) and the Spring House is the remains of a small granite quarry (Figure 6.15, bottom). The quarry was identified due to the presence of three drill holes in a small outcropping. The area was covered in deep leaf litter, but a nearby depression was suggestive of additional quarrying activity. The small quarry covers an area about 20 feet in diameter. Roger Montague mentioned having seen a small granite quarry on the property as a child, but he recalled it being located to the northeast of the tenant house. It is possible that there were multiple small quarries located on the property that are no longer visible due to the presence of fallen trees and leaf litter.

6.12

View of stone-lined spring to west of 31WA1772/1772**.

View of quarrying activity to west of 31WA1772/1772**. Note three drill holes.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 S. New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 (919) 212-1760 (919) 212-1707 Fax C 1999 ESI

www.environmentalservicesinc.com

Photos-Stone-lined Spring and Quarry

Forestville Road Property Wake County, North Carolina

Project:

ER10-065.00

Date:

Sept 2010

Drwn/Chkd:

SS/TR

Figure:

6.15

Forestville Road Property

6. Results of Investigations

6.13

Forestville Road Property

7. Summary and Recommendations

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ESI conducted an intensive archaeological survey of the Forestville Road Property in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina, for the City of Raleigh. Although the project was not subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) at the time of the investigation, the archaeological survey and reporting was designed to comply with guidelines established by the Office of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States and to meet the requirement of the NHPA. As a result of the investigation, three archaeological sites, 31WA1772/1772**31WA1774** were documented. Table 7.1 presents a summary of information for the three sites. Table 7.1: Summary of Site Data Site Number Cultural Affiliation 31WA1772/ Unknown Prehistoric/ 1772** Mid-19th to mid-20th century 31WA1773/ Unknown Prehistoric/ 1773** Mid-19th to mid-20th century 31WA1774** Mid-19th to mid-20th century

Site Type Limited Activity/ Domestic, Agriculture Limited Activity/ Domestic, Agriculture Transportation

Recommendations Potentially eligible Not eligible - NFW Not eligible - NFW

Recommendations National Register Eligiblity Neither site 31WA1773/1773** (James Upchurch Site) nor site 31WA1774** (Freddie’s Path) are considered eligible for the National Register. Site 31WA1773/1773** has little archaeological integrity, a result of disturbance from the mechanical demolition of the James Upchurch house and associated outbuildings in the 1960s by the Montagues and the construction and removal of the two trailers, manufactured home, and associated outbuildings in the 1990s and 2000s. Although 31WA1774** is in relatively good condition, the road does not appear to have served as a significant local or regional transportation route, nor does it have the potential to yield significant new information pertaining to the history of the area or the construction of old roads. Rather, it represents a well preserved example of an old, unpaved farm road from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Investigations at 31WA1772/1772** suggest that the site has the potential to be eligible for listing in the National Register. As the remains of a former tenant occupation, the site contains the nearly intact foundations of the house and a large outbuilding as well as apparently intact archaeological deposits. Artifacts suggest that the beginning of the occupation dates to ca. 1869, but it may pre-date the Civil War, based on accounts from some members of the extended Upchurch family. This site has the potential to yield significant information pertaining to the transition from slavery to tenancy and/or the lifeways of African-American tenants in Wake County during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Additional significance testing is recommended to determine if the site is eligible for the National Register.

7.1

Forestville Road Property

7. Summary and Recommendations

Park Design and Educational Potential Recommendations All three archaeological sites documented as a result of this investigation retain cultural features and physical characteristics that would allow them to be used for cultural interpretation within an educational park setting, regardless of their National Register eligibility status. ESI recommends that a landscape approach be taken to the design of the park that would help convey the historical character of the property. This would include a combination of preservation of existing features (cultural and natural) and restoration of some aspects of the historical natural landscape. It is suggested that the 1949 and 1954 aerial photographs shown on Figure 6.2 should be used as a base point for the park design in combination with the findings of this investigation. Cultural features that should be preserved at 31WA1772/1772** include the foundation elements, the remnants of the road/drive that runs through the site, and the possible outhouse location as well as related cultural features nearby such as the stone-lined spring and the quarry. The foundation elements for the tenant house and related large outbuilding could be cleared of dirt and vegetation to better show the footprints of each building. To protect archaeological deposits located within the foundations, a layer of sterile sand should be placed over the existing soil and planted with native grasses. Artifacts present on the ground surface, such as whole and broken glass canning jars and the washing machine, should be collected to discourage artifact collection by park visitors and for safety considerations. The collection should be conducted systematically to record their archaeological context and could be part of any additional archaeological work conducted at the site. The red barn, wooden fence, and piles of granite stone at 31WA1773/1773** should be preserved in place. Other existing features, such as the small playhouse and any features related to the late twentieth century occupation such as foundation elements from the trailers and manufactured home, gravel drive, and septic system should be removed. All of the trees, especially the pecan and walnut trees, should be retained, but the grassy areas should be kept mown. The old road bed recorded as 31WA1774** (e.g. Freddie’s Path) could be used as a pedestrian access from the western portion of the property to the eastern portion. It could be cleared of vegetation and then be covered in a coarse aggregate, mulch, or other mixture that would impede or prevent erosion of the road bed from runoff or from pedestrian traffic. A pedestrian bridge over the unnamed tributary of Harris Creek would be necessary; its design should incorporate rustic elements that would convey a historic feel. Although not in its original historical location, the cabin should be left in place. It is recommended that it be examined by specialists in the preservation and restoration of historic buildings to identify any elements that are in need of repair or replacement and to suggest potential preservation methods. Areas that were once agricultural fields or pastures as shown on the 1949 and 1954 aerial photography (Figure 6.2) could be cleared of standing and fallen trees and seeded with a regionally-appropriate grass seed mixture. These areas would then be maintained through regular mowing. This action would convert some areas that are currently not amenable to public

7.2

Forestville Road Property

7. Summary and Recommendations

use due to the density of fallen trees and vegetation, especially in the northeastern quadrant of the property, into areas that would be accessible to and useable by the general public and help convey qualities of the park that existed during the historic occupation of the property. Signage will be a critical element of any educational element to the design of the park. It is recommended that signage be design and placed at both the tenant site and the James Upchurch site summarizing what is known about the history of each site. The focus of the text would be on the Upchurch family at 31WA1773/1773** and on Post-bellum and African-American tenancy at 31WA1772/1772**. Other signage could be placed along the old road (31WA1774**) and near the old fields/pastures.

7.3

Forestville Road Property

7. Summary and Recommendations

7.4

Forestville Road Property

Appendix A: Artifact Tables

APPENDIX A: ARTIFACT TABLES

A.1

Forestville Road Property

Appendix A: Artifact Tables

A.2

0-10 0-25 0-25 0-25

0-15

MOLDED

EYELETS

HIST CLOTHING

LEATHER

SHOE

HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST

SHELL CLEAR IRON IRON ASBESTOS ASPHALT ASPHALT MILK GLASS IRON IRON AQUA CLEAR IRON TIN

BUTTON LIGHT BULB NAIL NAIL SHINGLE SHINGLE SHINGLE CURVED LINKED CHAIN PLOW BLADE FLAT FLAT UID SHEET

SHELL GLASS METAL METAL OTHER OTHER OTHER GLASS METAL METAL GLASS GLASS METAL METAL

A.3

THREADED

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

D C C C C C C C

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 6 6

A C A A A A A

WIRE WIRE

BODY

BODY BODY

D D D D

COMMENTS

BOWL CURVED CURVED CURVED CURVED CURVED CURVED CURVED CURVED CURVED CURVED JAR JAR CANNING JAR LID CANNING JAR LID

BODY BODY BODY BODY RIM RIM RIM BODY RIM RIM BODY BODY BODY BODY BODY BODY BODY BODY BODY BODY LIP NECK

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

POLYCHROME BLUE ORANGE

ORSER SUBGROUP

970 1015 1000 1015 1000 1000 1045 1015 985 1030 1030 1000 1015 985

0-15 0-25 0-15

ALKALINE FIESTAWARE FIESTAWARE GRAY PLAIN PLAIN PLAIN PLAIN

ORSER GROUP

1045

970 1000 1000 985 1000 1000 970 1000 985 985 985 970 985 1000

0-15 0-10 0-25

STONEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR MILK GLASS MILK GLASS

Vessel Portion

970

ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST

0-15 0-10

CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS

Description2 (Decoration)

31WA1772/1772** 1 31WA1772/1772** 38 31WA1772/1772** 4 31WA1772/1772** 40 31WA1772/1772** 4 31WA1772/1772** 4 31WA1772/1772** 27 31WA1772/1772** 38 31WA1772/1772** 24 31WA1772/1772** 41 31WA1772/1772** 41 31WA1772/1772** 2 31WA1772/1772** 40 31WA1772/1772** 23

HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST

Description1 (Item Type)

31WA1772/1772** 27

0-10

Material/Ware

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Artifact Category

Strat

970 1015 1015 1015 1000 970 985 1015 1015 985 1000 970 1000 985 985 1015 1015 1000 1015 1030 1000 1000 1000 985

Component

EAST

1000 985 985 985 970 1000 985 985 1000 1000 970 1000 1000 985 970 970 1000 985 985 985 970 1000 970 985

Level/Depth

NORTH

ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST

Prov Desig

31WA1772/1772** 3 31WA1772/1772** 40 31WA1772/1772** 40 31WA1772/1772** 40 31WA1772/1772** 2 31WA1772/1772** 3 31WA1772/1772** 24 31WA1772/1772** 40 31WA1772/1772** 38 31WA1772/1772** 23 31WA1772/1772** 2 31WA1772/1772** 3 31WA1772/1772** 4 31WA1772/1772** 24 31WA1772/1772** 25 31WA1772/1772** 26 31WA1772/1772** 38 31WA1772/1772** 39 31WA1772/1772** 40 31WA1772/1772** 41 31WA1772/1772** 2 31WA1772/1772** 4 31WA1772/1772** 2 31WA1772/1772** 24

TRINOMIAL

Provenience Type

Appendix A: Artifact Tables

Bag Number

Forestville Road Property

1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 5 NOT COLLECTED 2 NOT COLLECTED 13 NOT COLLECTED 3 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 6 NOT COLLECTED 4 NOT COLLECTED 1 1 1 1 BRASS EYELETS. 4 SHOE? 1 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 1 1 NOT COLLECTED 8 NOT COLLECTED 2 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 1 1 NOT COLLECTED 2 NOT COLLECTED 1 2 NOT COLLECTED

CURVED

BODY

CLEAR

CURVED

BODY

HIST GLASS

CLEAR

CURVED

BODY

1 1 1

HIST GLASS HIST GLASS HIST GLASS

CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR

CURVED CURVED CURVED

BODY BASE BODY

1 1 1

HIST GLASS

CLEAR

CURVED

BODY

II I I I I I I I I I I I

2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1

HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST

CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR IRON IRON BRASS SHELL

CURVED CURVED CURVED JAR THREADED JAR JAR THREADED JAR THREADED JAR CANNING JAR LID THREADED CROWN BOTTLE CAP SNAP SNAP INSERT

BODY BODY BODY RIM BASE RIM RIM BODY

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

31WA1772/1772** 44

31WA1772/1772** 45

31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 46

Description2 (Decoration)

LITHIC CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC CERAMIC GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS

Material/Ware

31WA1772/1772** 42

I I I I I I I I II I I I I II

Component

1030

Level/Depth

Strat

EAST

NORTH

31WA1772/1772** 48

Prov Desig

PRE HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST

TRINOMIAL

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3

985

DEB PALE GREEN PLAIN PLAIN PLAIN PLAIN PLAIN PLAIN PLAIN PLAIN BOTTLE BOTTLE BOTTLE BOTTLE

WHITEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE WHITEWARE BLUE MILK GLASS CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR

HIST GLASS

CLEAR

BOTTLE

HIST GLASS

CLEAR

HIST GLASS

TU TU TU

1 1 1

I I I

31WA1772/1772** 46

31WA1772/1772** 47 31WA1772/1772** 49 31WA1772/1772** 48 31WA1772/1772** 44 31WA1772/1772** 45 31WA1772/1772** 45 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 48 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 42 31WA1772/1772** 45 31WA1772/1772** 46

TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU

1 3 3 4 4 4 1 3 1 2 4 1

GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS METAL METAL METAL OTHER

A.4

PLATE

PLATE BOWL

D D D D D D D A A

COMMENTS

BODY

4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 3

ORSER SUBGROUP

PANEL

ST TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU

Description1 (Item Type)

C C C C C C C C C D D D D

31WA1772/1772** 41 31WA1772/1772** 44 31WA1772/1772** 43 31WA1772/1772** 42 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 47 31WA1772/1772** 43 31WA1772/1772** 44 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 50

Artifact Category

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Provenience Type

MOLDED PANEL

BODY RIM BODY BASE BASE RIM BODY BASE RIM BODY BASE BODY BODY

Bag Number

ORSER GROUP

Appendix A: Artifact Tables

Vessel Portion

Forestville Road Property

1 1 1 1 1 3 REFIT 1 3 7 1 SEE BAG 46 1 1 […ON] 2 REFIT 1 7 1 2 DIFFERENT 5 BOTTLES 13 MOST PROBABLY 33 FROM 1 BOTTLE AND 1 JAR MOST PROBABLY 32 FROM 1 BOTTLE AND 1 JAR 71 1 1 […OS] […N] SIMILAR TO 1 […ON] IN BAG 44 1 2 6 1 1 1 3 1 [BALL] 1 2 1 [UNITED CARR] 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST

LIGHT BULB LAMP GLASS LAMP GLASS LAMP GLASS LAMP GLASS LIGHT BULB WINDOW PANE CAP OR FINIAL DRAWER PULL

GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS METAL METAL

Strat

Material/Ware AMBER CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR IRON IRON

MOLDED

BODY BODY BODY BODY RIM BODY

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

C C C C C C A C C

1 2 1 2 1 1 8 1 1

31WA1772/1772** 44

HIST METAL

IRON

FURNITURE

DECORATIVE

31WA1772/1772** 43 31WA1772/1772** 42 31WA1772/1772** 42 31WA1772/1772** 45 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 48 31WA1772/1772** 48 31WA1772/1772** 48 31WA1772/1772** 42 31WA1772/1772** 42 31WA1772/1772** 44 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 44 31WA1772/1772** 45 31WA1772/1772** 48 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 44 31WA1772/1772** 45 31WA1772/1772** 48

TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU

2 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 4 1 4 4 3 1 4 4 3

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1

HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST

IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON BLUE COBALT BLUE MILK GLASS AMBER IRON IRON CLEAR IRON IRON IRON IRON

NAIL NAIL NAIL NAIL NAIL NAIL NAIL NAIL NAIL TACK CURVED CURVED MOLDED BOTTLE CAN CAST FLAT SHEET UID UID UID

WIRE CUT WIRE WIRE WIRE CUT UID CUT UID CUT

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6

A A A A A A A A A B

METAL METAL METAL METAL METAL METAL METAL METAL METAL METAL GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS METAL METAL GLASS METAL METAL METAL METAL

A.5

CLOROX

BODY BODY BODY BODY RIM

CURVED PLATE BODY UID

C B B

COMMENTS

I I I I I I I I I

1 2 4 1 1 1 1 3 3

ORSER SUBGROUP

TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU TU

ORSER GROUP

31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 42 31WA1772/1772** 44 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 46 31WA1772/1772** 48 31WA1772/1772** 48

Description2 (Decoration)

BRICK

Artifact Category

HIST CONSTRUCTIOBRICK

Component

Level/Depth

Prov Desig

EAST

Provenience Type

NORTH

Bag Number

TRINOMIAL

31WA1772/1772** 48

Vessel Portion

Appendix A: Artifact Tables

Description1 (Item Type)

Forestville Road Property

MAY NOT BE BRICK

DECORATIVE IRON TO GO OVER FOOT OF 1 TABLE OR OTHER PIECE OF FURNITURE? 2 PIECES REFIT. 1 3 3 2 9 9 4 3 2 1 1 2 2 3 […OX] 1 PAINT OR OIL CAN 1 5 1 4 1 1

HIST METAL

TIN

SHEET

4 1

I I

2 1

HIST PLASTIC HIST PLASTIC

SHEET SHEET

BLACK PINK/RED

6 6

31WA1772/1772** 48

HIST UID

31WA1772/1772** 48 31WA1773/1773** 22 31WA1773/1773** 22 31WA1773/1773** 22 31WA1773/1773** 22 31WA1773/1773** 34 31WA1773/1773** 34 31WA1773/1773** 34 31WA1773/1773** 8 31WA1773/1773** 8 31WA1773/1773** 30 31WA1773/1773** 18 31WA1773/1773** 33 31WA1773/1773** 9 31WA1773/1773** 12 31WA1773/1773** 32 31WA1773/1773** 32 31WA1773/1773** 32 31WA1773/1773** 32 31WA1773/1773** 32 31WA1773/1773** 32 31WA1773/1773** 28 31WA1773/1773** 28 31WA1773/1773** 17 31WA1773/1773** 17 31WA1773/1773** 17 31WA1773/1773** 17 31WA1773/1773** 17 31WA1773/1773** 13 31WA1773/1773** 13 31WA1773/1773** 13

TU ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST

I 1 I I I I I I I I/II 0-15 I/II 0-15 I I I I 0-20 I 0-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

955 955 955 955 970 970 970 970 970 985 985 1000 1000 1000 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015

1030 1030 1030 1030 1045 1045 1045 1060 1060 970 1015 955 970 1000 955 955 955 955 955 955 970 970 985 985 985 985 985 1000 1000 1000

Strat

Material/Ware

PRE LITHIC RHYOLITE HIST GLASS CLEAR HIST GLASS GREEN HIST METAL IRON HIST GLASS COBALT BLUE HIST GLASS AQUA HIST GLASS CLEAR HIST GLASS CLEAR HIST OTHER ASBESTOS HIST METAL IRON HIST GLASS GREEN HIST METAL IRON HIST GLASS AMBER HIST GLASS CLEAR HIST GLASS CLEAR HIST METAL CUPROUS HIST CONSTRUCTIOBRICK HIST GLASS CLEAR HIST GLASS AQUA HIST METAL IRON PREHI LITHIC QUARTZ HIST GLASS MILK GLASS HIST GLASS CLEAR HIST GLASS CLEAR HIST CONSTRUCTIOMORTAR HIST GLASS CLEAR HIST GLASS CLEAR HIST METAL IRON HIST GLASS AQUA HIST GLASS CLEAR HIST GLASS CLEAR

A.6

DEB CURVED BOTTLE NAIL CURVED CURVED ??? CURVED SHINGLE PLOW BLADE TUMBLER HINGE BRACKET CURVED CURVED CURVED BUTTON BRICK WINDOW PANE FLAT UID DEB CANNING JAR LID WINDOW PANE CURVED FRAGMENT LAMP GLASS WINDOW PANE NAIL CURVED BOTTLE BOTTLE

SF SODA CUT

BODY BODY BODY BODY BASE BODY

RIM BODY BODY BODY COIN

BODY

1 1 3 4 1 1 1 3 5 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 6 6

D A

A A C B D

A A A

BODY BODY UID BODY BODY BASE

1 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1

D A A C A A D D

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 4 1

COMMENTS

TU TU

31WA1772/1772** 45 31WA1772/1772** 46

ORSER GROUP

31WA1772/1772** 48

6 THICK. FURNITURE OR TOOL? 2 REFIT. COULD BE 1 ALUMINUM? 3 1

Vessel Portion

IRON

Description2 (Decoration)

HIST METAL

Artifact Category

Component

Level/Depth

EAST

Prov Desig

NORTH

Provenience Type

31WA1772/1772** 48

TRINOMIAL

Bag Number

ORSER SUBGROUP

Appendix A: Artifact Tables

Description1 (Item Type)

Forestville Road Property

SHELL OR MORTAR NOT COLLECTED

NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED

NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED

NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED

1030

1000

0-15

31WA1773/1773** 6 31WA1773/1773** 6 31WA1773/1773** 6 31WA1773/1773** 6 31WA1773/1773** 6 31WA1773/1773** 6 31WA1773/1773** 6 31WA1773/1773** 6

ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST

1030 1030 1030 1030 1030 1030 1030 1030

1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

I I I I I I I I

0-15 0-15 0-15 0-15 0-15 0-15 0-15 0-15

31WA1773/1773** 20

1030

1015

31WA1773/1773** 7 31WA1773/1773** 7 31WA1773/1773** 36 31WA1773/1773** 11 31WA1773/1773** 31 31WA1773/1773** 14 31WA1773/1773** 14

ST ST ST ST ST ST ST

1030 1030 1030 1030 1045 1045 1045

1030 1030 1045 1060 955 1000 1000

MILK GLASS

CANNING JAR LID

HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST

SHELL GLASS METAL METAL METAL CERAMIC GLASS METAL

SHELL CLEAR IRON IRON IRON PORCELAIN CLEAR IRON

OYSTER WINDOW PANE NAIL NAIL NAIL PLAIN MELTED UID

CUT WIRE UID DOLL PART?

HIST CERAMIC

WHITEWARE

TRANSFER PRINT

BLUE

I/II 0-10 I/II 0-10 I I 0-15 I I I

HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST

WHITEWARE CLEAR WHITEWARE CLEAR CLEAR WHITEWARE CLEAR

PLAIN CURVED PLAIN WINDOW PANE CURVED PLAIN LAMP GLASS

CERAMIC GLASS CERAMIC GLASS GLASS CERAMIC GLASS

A.7

Description2 (Decoration)

HIST GLASS

Material/Ware

1 1 3 6 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1

1 3 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 3 1 NOT COLLECTED 6 NOT COLLECTED 2 NOT COLLECTED 3 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 2 NOT COLLECTED 2 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 2 NOT COLLECTED 1 3 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 18 NOT COLLECTED 3

1 3 3 3 3 4 6 6

E A A A A C

1 6 1 2 5 1 1 5

BODY

BASE BODY RIM

1 1 1 3 1 1 3

UID

BODY BODY BODY

C D A

COMMENTS

MOLDED BOWL SCALLOPED EDGRIM CANNING JAR LID WINDOW PANE UID PLAIN BASE BOTTLE PANEL BODY CURVED BODY LAMP GLASS BODY WINDOW PANE CURVED BODY PLAIN BODY CURVED BODY CURVED BODY CURVED BODY PLAIN BODY FRAGMENT ROCKINGHAM GLAZE BODY PLAIN BODY CURVED CURVED BODY JAR THREADED

31WA1773/1773** 6

CLEAR TIN CLEAR IRON WHITEWARE CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR MILK GLASS WHITEWARE CLEAR AMBER CLEAR WHITEWARE COAL STONEWARE WHITEWARE AMBER CLEAR CLEAR

GLASS METAL GLASS METAL CERAMIC GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS CERAMIC GLASS GLASS GLASS CERAMIC OTHER CERAMIC CERAMIC GLASS GLASS GLASS

ORSER SUBGROUP

Component

0-20 20-30 0-15 0-15 0-15 0-15 0-15

HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST

ORSER GROUP

Level/Depth

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I

Vessel Portion

Strat

1000 1000 1000 1000 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1030 1030 1045 1060 985 985 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Description1 (Item Type)

EAST

1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1030 1030 1030 1030 1030 1030 1030

Artifact Category

NORTH

ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST

Prov Desig

31WA1773/1773** 13 31WA1773/1773** 13 31WA1773/1773** 13 31WA1773/1773** 13 31WA1773/1773** 19 31WA1773/1773** 19 31WA1773/1773** 19 31WA1773/1773** 19 31WA1773/1773** 19 31WA1773/1773** 19 31WA1773/1773** 21 31WA1773/1773** 21 31WA1773/1773** 35 31WA1773/1773** 37 31WA1773/1773** 16 31WA1773/1773** 16 31WA1773/1773** 6 31WA1773/1773** 6 31WA1773/1773** 6 31WA1773/1773** 6 31WA1773/1773** 6

TRINOMIAL

Provenience Type

Appendix A: Artifact Tables

Bag Number

Forestville Road Property

C D C A C D C C D C D

C A C C

[…L/MA…], […GEN…] NOT COLLECTED

NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED NOT COLLECTED PARTIAL MAKER'S 1 MARK 1 4 NOT COLLECTED 1 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED

METAL IRON GLASS CLEAR GLASS AMBER GLASS CLEAR GLASS CLEAR GLASS CLEAR GLASS LIGHT GREEN CONSTRUCTIOCONCRETE GLASS CLEAR METAL IRON GLASS CLEAR GLASS CLEAR GLASS CLEAR CERAMIC WHITEWARE METAL IRON

A.8

HARDWARE CURVED BOTTLE CURVED CURVED CURVED BOTTLE FRAGMENT WINDOW PANE UID JAR JAR JAR PLAIN UID

UID

SODA

BODY LIP BODY BODY BODY BODY

BODY BASE LIP BODY

6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 6

D D A A D D D C

COMMENTS

ORSER SUBGROUP

ORSER GROUP

Vessel Portion

Description2 (Decoration)

Description1 (Item Type)

HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST HIST

Material/Ware

I I/II 0-15 I I I I I I I I I 0-15 I 0-15 I 0-15 I I

Artifact Category

Component

1000 970 985 985 985 985 985 985 985 985 1030 1030 1030 970 970

Level/Depth

EAST

1045 1060 1060 1060 1060 1060 1060 1060 1060 1060 1060 1060 1060 1075 1075

Strat

NORTH

ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST

Appendix A: Artifact Tables

Prov Desig

Provenience Type

31WA1773/1773** 14 31WA1773/1773** 10 31WA1773/1773** 15 31WA1773/1773** 15 31WA1773/1773** 15 31WA1773/1773** 15 31WA1773/1773** 15 31WA1773/1773** 15 31WA1773/1773** 15 31WA1773/1773** 15 31WA1773/1773** 5 31WA1773/1773** 5 31WA1773/1773** 5 31WA1773/1773** 29 31WA1773/1773** 29

TRINOMIAL

Bag Number

Forestville Road Property

2 ORSER 3 OR 5 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 2 REFIT 7 NOT COLLECTED 1 […SIT/N…] 1 [BAL…] 1 NOT COLLECTED 2 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED 2 NOT COLLECTED 23 NOT COLLECTED 1 [DUKE'S] 2 1 NOT COLLECTED 1 NOT COLLECTED

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. www.environmentalservicesinc.com Providing Superior Solutions to Environmental, Natural, and Cultural Resource Needs

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix K: Cabin Structural Assessment

October 9, 2025 Lauryn Kabrich Park Planner City of Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department 222 West Hargett Street Suite 601 Raleigh, NC 27601 Reference:

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin Dewberry Project Number 50189493

Lauryn: Per your request, Samantha Bates, PE and Julie Miles from Dewberry Engineers Inc. (Dewberry) made a site visit on August 13, 2025, to perform a visual structural evaluation of the existing historical log cabin located at 4909 Forestville Road, Raleigh, NC 27616 for the City of Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department (COR). The evaluation was prompted by the COR to determine what structural measures are required for the cabin to be safely used as a historic representation of building construction for the public. The structural assessment was limited to a visual review of areas accessible to Dewberry. A camera was used to document the observed conditions. No destructive or material testing was performed as a part of this investigation. Preparation of repair details is not part of this project scope. Existing Conditions: No existing drawings were provided to Dewberry. The cabin is one story (Photo 1), with an approximate footprint of 16 feet by 20 feet. The cabin was presumably built in the 1890s and relocated to its current location in the 1970s. The front porch (Photo 2) was added after the cabin’s relocation and is approximately 7 feet by 20 feet. The cabin also has a stone chimney that was added after the relocation (Photo 4).The floor framing consists of wood planks bearing on wood beams spaced approximately 2’-8” on center (Photo 9). The floor is supported by above-grade rocks (Photo 10). The rocks supporting the cabin around the perimeter are approximately 1’-3” x 1’-3”, and the rocks supporting the porch are approximately 1’-2” x 8”. The roof consists of metal deck supported by wood purlins on 2x4 wood beams. The porch roof is supported by wood purlins on 2x4 wood beams (Photo 7). The interior ceiling consists of wood planks supported by 5” diameter wood beams (Photo 11). The walls of the cabin are constructed of round log-cabin style stacked wood members with stucco between the joints (Photo 3, Photo 8).

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 2 of 19

Observations: The floor and roof of the main cabin appear to be in good condition for the structure’s age. The likely remaining life of the cabin is hard to define, however, based on the existing conditions observed, Dewberry expects approximately 20 years before additional cabin repairs are needed beyond those listed in the report. It is not recommended that the public be allowed access to the structure unless the repair items detailed below are fixed. Dewberry’s site visit was performed during rainy weather, and the roof did not appear to be leaking within the main cabin area. We were unable to closely observe the main roof framing due to the rigid ceiling, but the cabin is generally in fair shape considering the age of the original structure. Rot was observed in several areas of the cabin, including the exterior roof trim work and porch framing. No termite damage was observed. The porch floor is severely rotted with multiple holes in the wood planks. The porch roof framing showed minor signs of wood rot as well. Multiple floor beams in the main cabin framing and the porch framing were observed to be splitting. Recommendations: Dewberry is aware that the COR would like to explore two different location options, and that the cabin’s pending historical status may impact potential relocation and other structural repairs. Option 1: The first option is for the cabin to remain in place. Install sister beams at all splitting main cabin floor beams. This is an immediate repair item due to its direct impact on the structural integrity of the cabin and should be remediated within one year. The main cabin rotted roof trim board should be removed and replaced. This is a medium term repair item since it does not directly impact the structural integrity of the cabin but should be completed within one to five years to limit the spread of rot. The front porch floor planks should be replaced as their current condition presents a life safety issue due to the active wood rot. The damaged and rotting framing members should be reinforced by adding a sister beam. These are immediate term repair items and should be remediated within one year. In an effort to increase the longevity of the structure, it is recommended that all new deck boards be coated with a water repellant stain. The alternative to repairing the porch floor and roof framing is to demolish the porch. Dewberry recommends demolishing the porch within one to five years to help limit the spread of rot. See structural cost estimate for details (Table 1). Option 2: The second option is to relocate the cabin. The front porch and stone chimney will be demolished in this option, as they likely have no historical value due to age of construction. Install sister beams at all splitting main cabin floor beams prior to relocating the cabin. This is an immediate repair item since it directly impacts the structural integrity of the cabin and should be remediated within one year. Remove and replace rotted roof trim board within one to five years to limit rot spread. Approximately 15 feet clearance on all sides is required to lift the cabin from its original location. A moving path with a width equal to the cabin’s width plus 5 feet of clearance each side must be cleared through the forest. Two estimates have been provided to Dewberry based on contact with two moving companies (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2). New footings and piers shall be installed at new cabin location.

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 3 of 19

Optionally construct a new chimney and new front porch after relocating the cabin. See structural cost estimate for details (Table 2). See table below for a summary of repair items and their respective suggested repair terms. Repair Item Reinforce existing split main cabin floor beams Remove and replace rotted roof trim board Reinforce existing front porch floor framing beams Replace front porch floor planks

Repair Term Immediate (< 1 year), Structural Integrity Medium (1 - 5 years) Immediate (< 1 year), Life Safety Immediate (< 1 year), Life Safety

Dewberry greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide engineering services. Please contact Dewberry if you have any questions concerning this letter. Sincerely, Dewberry Engineers Inc. NCBELS # F-0929

PRELIMINARY FOR REVIEW

Samantha Bates, PE

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 4 of 19

Photo 1 – Cabin Exterior

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 5 of 19

Photo 2 – Front Porch

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 6 of 19

Photo 3 – Exterior Back Wall

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 7 of 19

Photo 4 – Chimney

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 8 of 19

Photo 5 – Porch Floor Panels

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 9 of 19

Photo 6 – Porch Floor Panels and Beam

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 10 of 19

Photo 7 – Porch Roof Framing

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 11 of 19

Photo 8 – Exterior Wall

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 12 of 19

Photo 9 – Floor Framing and Rock Supports

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 13 of 19

Photo 10 – Floor Framing and Rock Supports

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 14 of 19

Photo 11 – Cabin Interior

Forestville Road Park Structural Assessment Structural Evaluation of Cabin October 9, 2025 Page 15 of 19

Photo 12 – Interior Wall

FORESTVILLE RD CABIN - COST ESTIMATE OPTION 1 - CABIN REMAINS IN PLACE OCTOBER 2025 Item No. 1 2 3 4 5

Item Replacement of all front porch deck board and trim boards. Installation of sister beam at rotted porch beams. Replacement of rotted roof trim board. Installation of sister beams at split floor beams. Porch demolition (add alternate)

Estimated Quantities Unit

Cost Extension

Unit Price

Cost Escalation Add Alternate (2026) (2026)

140

7,000

7,420

1,200

1,272

600

636

128

5,120

5,427

5,000 $ SUBTOTAL $ DEWBERRY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FEE $ GENERAL CONDITIONS AND MOBILIZATION (5%) $ BONDS, INSURANCE, AND PERMITS (2%) $ GC OVERHEAD AND PROFIT (10%) $ SUBTOTAL LOADED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%) $

5,000 13,920 4,454 696 278 1,392 20,741 6,222

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

14,755 4,722 738 295 1,476 21,985 6,596

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

5,300 12,045 4,086 638 255 1,277 18,301 5,820

TOTAL $

26,963

28,581 $

24,121

NOTES: 1. Cost escalation column assumes - 2025 escalation estimated to be 6% 2. Quantities are estimated based on limited site information 3. Unit Prices include O&P of 15% Table 1 - Option 1 Cost Estimate

FORESTVILLE RD CABIN - COST ESTIMATE OPTION 2 - CABIN RELOCATION OCTOBER 2025 Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Item Porch and chimney demolition. Clearing and grubbing. Cabin relocation (contractor to price) New concrete footing installation New concrete pier installation New stone chimney construction (add alternate) New front porch construction (add alternate)

Estimated Quantities Unit

Cost Extension

Unit Price

Cost Escalation (2026)

Add Alternate (2026)

1 25

EA EA

$ $

10,000 2,000

$ $

10,000 50,000

$ $

10,600 53,000

$ $

10,600 53,000

44,000

46,640

4 1.5

CY CY

$ $

1,000 2,000

$ $

4,000 3,000

$ $

4,240 3,180

$ $

4,240 3,180

10,000

10,600

10,000 $ SUBTOTAL $ DEWBERRY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FEE $ GENERAL CONDITIONS AND MOBILIZATION (5%) $ BONDS, INSURANCE, AND PERMITS (2%) $ GC OVERHEAD AND PROFIT (10%) $ SUBTOTAL LOADED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%) $

10,000 111,000 11,100 555 2,220 11,100 135,975 40,793

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

117,660 11,766 588 2,353 11,766 144,134 43,240

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

10,600 138,860 14,719 780 2,944 14,719 182,344 57,985

TOTAL $

176,768

187,374

$ 240,329

ATTACHMENT 1

Elite Structural Movers Official Quote Project: 4909 Fortsville Road, Raleigh, NC 27616 This is a quote issued to Julie Miles on behalf of Elite Structural Movers, Inc. (Provider) on this date, August 27th, 2025. This project will involve moving the structure at the above location: Structural Relocation $ 16,000 Description of services to be provided: - Relocate structure on the same property approximately 500 feet - Set structure onto new foundation (to be provided by client or third-party contractor) Client will be responsible for: - Providing the footing/foundation - Disconnecting and reconnecting the HVAC unit - Disconnecting and reconnecting the plumbing and electrical

Our price includes the duties detailed above. Any changes made to the scope of the work performed will require issuing a new quote. This quote will be good for no more than 60 days. If a contract is not signed by that time, a new quote must be issued.

This quote was approved by: Name: sign above

Title: Date:

Owner / Officer 8/27/2025

We offer competitive pricing! We can match or beat most other movers' prices.

PO Box 552 - Washington, NC 27889 - (252)402-9422 - elitestructuralmovers@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 2

DeVooght House Lifters LLC DeVooght House & Building Movers 511 N D Street, PO BOX 250 Bridgeton, North Carolina 28519 844-203-9912 deanna.dhbm@gmail.com www.devooghthouselifters.com

A PROPOSAL FOR Julie Miles

PHONE 919-424-3713

PROPERTY ADDRESS 4909 Forestville Rd, Raleigh, NC 27616

Proposal PROPOSAL NO.

DATE

9468

09/23/2025

COMPLETED BY

Jason DeVooght NC Contractor’s License #82994

EMAIL jmiles@dewberry.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION Structural Relocation, on-site

WE HEREBY PROPOSE TO FURNISH THE MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND PERFORM THE LABOR NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF A STRUCTURAL RELOCATION PROJECT. DEVOOGHT HOUSE LIFTERS/HOUSE & BUILDING MOVERS IS FULLY INSURED. ❖❖❖

61 Years of Structural Lifting & Relocation Excellence … 1964 ̶ 2025.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION Detach the wood-frame historic log cabin from the existing foundation (with the porch and chimney), then load the structure on our moving equipment; rotate as needed and transport the structure approximately 500 feet to the new foundation location using our Unified Hydraulic Jacking System and structural moving dollies. DeVooght will lift the structure from the existing foundation and install main beams, cross beams, and needle beams to support the structure. DeVooght to install moving equipment, rotate and transport the structure to the new pre-installed footings and hold elevated (the foundation work will be completed by a different contractor that you will hire); then return to lower the structure onto the foundation and remove all equipment. Owner/owner's general contractor responsible for additional costs to include any structural demo work (to include removing any items not being moved with the structure), and ground leveling/grading and any tree clearing/trimming, as needed. $44,000.00.

Additional services provided by DeVooght: ❖ Foundation Demolition ❖ Helical Pile Installation We have 61 continuous years of lifting and moving experience. You can count on seeing a DeVooght expert on every job, including yours. Visit our website for lots of lifting and moving photos.

The above work is to be performed in accordance with the specifications submitted here, completed in a substantial professional and workmanlike manner for the sum of $44,000.00. Pricing reflects that of a non-prevailing wage project. This estimate is valid for 90 days from the date of issuance.

Last reviewed/updated by DMD 01/2025

Forestville Road Park Master Plan

Appendix L: Historic Deeds + Documents

Historic Deeds + Documents In 2025, Roger Montague, son of Hallie Upchurch Montague and CAG member, donated seven deeds related to the Upchurch property to the City of Raleigh’s Historic Resources and Museums (HRM) Program. The deeds, ranging from 1836 to 1966, were sent to a conservator for preservation and now reside in HRM’s collections. Transcriptions of the historic documents are available on HRM’s online collections database. These deeds will help guide the development of historic interpretive signage throughout the site. Links to the records are below, and printouts of the collections entries are on the pages that follow. Direct Links: https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32655 https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32656 https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32657 https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32658 https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32659 https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32660 https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32661

Page 1 of 1

1/22/26, 5:05 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.001 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Email to a Friend

Send us Feedback or Make a Request

Collection Catalog Number Object Name Date Scope & Content

City of Raleigh Museum RCM2025.006.001 Indenture December 26, 1836 A double-sided, handwritten indenture acknowledging the transfer of roughly

Archive Record

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32655

1/4

1/22/26, 5:05 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.001 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32655

220 acres of land in Wake County from John Perry to Kearney Upchurch for the sum of $500. The tract of land is stated to be bordered by Powells Creek, Mill Creek, and the Neuse River. The indenture was drafted on December 26, 1836 and written, signed, and delivered in the presence of James Young and Wesley Perry. The indenture was officially registered in the Register's Office of Wake County in February 1838, as signed by Richard Smith. It reads as follows: "This indenture made this twentysixth day December in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty six. Between John Perry of the county of Wake in the state of North Carolina of the one part and Kearney Upchurch of the county + state of foresaid of the other part. Witnesseth that the said John Perry for and in consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Dollars the Receipt whereof the said John Perry doth hereby acknowledge hath given granted bargained sold delivered and confirmed and by these presents doth give grant bargain and sell alien and confirm unto the said Kearney Upchurch his heirs and assigns forever all that tract of land [illegible] lying and being in the county of Wake state of North Carolina beginning at a Red oak on the north side of the Neuse River on the River Bay and running east Two Hundred and Forty Poles to a White oak and pine in Hills line. Thence north across the Mill Creek to Powell’s Creek to Neuse River thence down Neuse River to the first

2/4

1/22/26, 5:05 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.001 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Classification People https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32655

station containing by estimation Two Hundred and Seventy Acres more or Let to have and to hold the said tract of land to him the said Kearny Upchurch his heirs and assigns forever and also all the woods ways waters [illegible]. Thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining and the reversion and reversions remainder and remainders rents issues profits of the aforesaid Land + premises and every part thereof and all the Estate right with interest claim property and demand whatever of the said John Perry his heirs and assigns to [missing] only proper only us and behoof of the said Kearny Upchurch his heirs and assigns forever and the said John Perry doth for himself and his Heirs the aforesaid Land promises and every part thereof against the claim or claims of any person or persons whatsoever to the said Kearny Upchurch his heirs and assigns do covenant to warrant and defend forever by these Presents in witness whereof the said John Perry hath here unto set my hand and affix my seal the day and date above written. Sealed, Signed + delivered In the presence of us James Young Wesley Perry John Perry (seal) Register in the Register office of Wake County in Book No 13 and page 44 this 14th day [missing] A.D. 1838 Richard Smith" Documents Upchurch, Kearney

3/4

1/22/26, 5:05 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.002 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Email to a Friend

Send us Feedback or Make a Request

Archive Record

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32656

1/6

1/22/26, 5:05 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.002 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Collection Catalog Number Object Name Date Scope & Content

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32656

City of Raleigh Museum RCM2025.006.002 Indenture July 20, 1841 A two-page, double-sided, handwritten indenture acknowledging the transfer of two tracts of land in Wake County from Ruffin Lewis to Kearney Upchurch for the sum of $514. One of the tracts of land appears to have been sold at the request of Alfred Lewis and with the consent of Abram Hester and Allen Rogers in order to pay debts. The first tract of land is roughly 165 acres on the north side of the Neuse River, and the other is roughly 34 acres referred to as the Peterson Hill Tract. The indenture was drafted on July 20, 1841 with Hinton Hudson as a witness, along with an acknowledgement by Abram Hester and Allen Rogers witnessed by a member of the Haywood family. The indenture was officially registered in the Register's Office of Wake County on November 1, 1842, as acknowledged by Richard Smith. It reads as follows: Page 1 “This indenture made this 20th day of July in the in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty one between Ruffin Lewis trustee (in a certain deed of trust executed by Alfred Lewis to secure certain debts therein mentioned due by note to Joshua Strauss, and a note to John Buffaloe, and also a note to Allen Honeycutt or to 2/6

1/22/26, 5:05 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.002 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32656

the Bank of Cape Fear to all of which notes Abram Hester and Allen Rogers are the [illegible]) of the first part and Kearny Upchurch of the second part all of the county of Wake and state of North Carolina Witnesseth that the said Ruffin Lewis doth by and with the consent of the aforesaid Abram Hester Allen Rogers and at the request of Alfred Lewis the grantor in the aforesaid deed of that which way execute on the __ day of November 1840 duly proven and registered in the Register’s office of Wake County for and in consideration of the sum of Five Hundred and fourteen dollars to the heir of said Ruffin Lewis in land paid by the said Henry Upchurch heirs and assigns forever two certain tracts of lands in the county of Wake aforesaid on the North side of Neuse River (to [illegible]) a certain tract of land adjoining the lands of John Smithe[?] and others known and designated as the doww of Mrs. Sarah Rogers deed at the Christmas tract lying on the north side of Neuse River containing one hundred sixty five acres more as left formerly the property of Aaron Rogers being the land in which he lived and also one other tract of land known and designated as the Peterson Hill Tract containing thirty four acres more or less adjoining the lands of John Smith Mrs. Mary Hill and others. To have and to hold the same to him his heirs and assigns forever and the said Ruffin Lewis doth hereby agree to and with the said Kearney Upchurch to warrant and forever defend the rights and title

3/6

1/22/26, 5:05 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.002 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

to him + his heirs against the lawful claim or claims of all persons whatsoever [illegible] land this 20th day of July AD 1841. With Winton Hudson Ruffin Lewis (seal) State of North Carolina [illegible] Wake County County- August Sepious 1842 the Execution of the forgoing deed was [illegible] by the oath of Hinton Hudson [illegible] to be Registered. Jas. J. Marring, [illegible] Know [illegible] by those present that we Abram Hester and Allen Rogers for whom benefit the aforesaid tract of land [illegible] do hereby for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar to us in hand paid by Kearney Upchurch share and convey all our [illegible] to the said tracts of lands whether [illegible] or in equity to the said Kearney Upchurch + his heirs and do hereby [illegible] the said Ruffin Lewis Trustee as aforesaid to make [illegible] to the said Kearney Upchurch + his heirs. As [illegible] our hands seals this 20th day of July 1841. With [illegible] Haywood A. Hester (seal) Allen Rogers (seal)”

Page 2 “I Alfred Lewis of the county of Wake aforesaid do for and in consideration of the [illegible] + in further consideration of one dollar to me in hand paid by Kearney Upchurch ratify and confirm https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32656

4/6

1/22/26, 5:05 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.002 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32656

the aforesaid deed from Ruffin Lewis to Kearney Upchurch + do [illegible] Bargain all + convey to him + his heirs all my [illegible] to the two tracts of lands to get one tract of land on the North side of the Neuse River and joining the lands of John Smith + others known + designated as the [illegible] of Mrs. Sarah Rogers deed to the Christmas tract lying o the North side of the Neuse River containing one hundred sixty five acres more or less formerly the property of Aaron Rogers being the land on which he lived- also one other tract of land known and designable as the Peterson Hill Tract containing Ninety four acres more or less adjoining the lands of John Smith Mrs. Mary Hill + other to have + to hold the same to him + his heirs forever. And I do [illegible] covenant and agree to warrant + defend right + title to the said tracts of land to the aforesaid Kearney Upchurch to him + his heirs forever against the lawful claim or claims of all pardons whatsoever. [illegible] my hand + seal this 20th day of July AD 1841. With A. W. Lewis (seal) [illegible] State of North Carolina Court of Pleas + [illegible] ______ Wake County August Term 1842. See Execution of the foregoing instrument was duly [illegible] by the oaths of Temple Robertson the subscribing witness thereto, and ordered to be Registered. Jas. J. Marris H. Cole Registered in the Register office of

5/6

1/22/26, 5:05 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.002 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Wake County in Book No. 15 and Page 217 the 1st day of November A.D. 1842 Richard Smith Regs.”

Classification People

Written on front “Upchurch, Kerney Form Deed Ruffin + Alfred Lewis A. Hester + Allen Rogers” Documents Upchurch, Kearney

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32656

6/6

1/22/26, 5:07 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.003 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Email to a Friend

Send us Feedback or Make a Request

Archive Record

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32657

1/4

1/22/26, 5:07 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.003 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Collection Catalog Number Object Name Date Scope & Content

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32657

City of Raleigh Museum RCM2025.006.003 Indenture May 9, 1872 An indenture acknowledging the transfer of roughly 82 acres of land in the St. Matthews Township in Wake County from A.W. Shaffer and his wife, Alice A. Shaffer, to Jane Upchurch for the sum of $295. The indenture, drafted on May 9, 1872, is handwritten on a State of North Carolina Warranty Deed form, which folds open. The inside included postage and signatures, including Judge of Probate J.N. Bunting. The indenture was officially registered in the Register's Office of Wake County on July 3, 1872. It reads as follows: "State of North Carolina, County of Wake Warranty Deed This Indenture, Made this Ninth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and Seventy two, between A.W. Shaffer and Alice A. Shaffer, of the City of Raleigh in the County of Wake and of the State of North Carolina, of the first part, and Mrs. Jane E. Upchurch in the County of Wake and State of North Carolina of the second part, Witnesseth, That the said part is of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Two Hundred and ninety five Dollard, to them in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, have given, granted, bargained and 2/4

1/22/26, 5:07 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.003 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32657

sold, aliened and confirmed, and by these presents do ___ give, grant, bargain and sell, alien and confirm unto the said party of the second part, and to her heirs and assigns forever; All that certain tract, pieces, parcel, or lot of land, situate, lying and being in the Township of St. Matthews in the County of Wake and State of North Carolina bounded and described as follows, to-wit: On the North by lands conveyed by the parties of the first part to Irvin PoolOn the East by lands conveyed by the parties of the first part to Henry V. Pace, being two tracts founds in the subdivision of the Peoples-Horton tract was surveyed and subdivided by Wm. H. Pace surveyor in December 1870. And on the South and West by the South and West line of said PeoplesHorton tract as the same was surveyed by said Pace in December 1870 containing Eighty two acres of lands more or less- described by survey as follows- beginning at a staro in the northwest comes of said tract and running through Suth 20 30’ West to Red Post oak comes. There S 60 (degrees) E 4.80 to stake. There S 87 (degrees) 30’ E 13.00 ch to Water oak near Jas. Upchurch. There N 3 (degrees) E [illegible] There S 87 (degrees) 15’ E8-ch to oak stump. There N 4 (degrees) E. 11.95 ch to Red Oak. There S 88.30’ E 20 ch to stake. There North 14.70 ch to stake. There S 81 (degree) 30’ W 46 chains to place of beginning- as surveyed by Wm. H. Pace surveyor in December 1870”

3/4

1/22/26, 5:07 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.003 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Classification People

Front flap reads: "Warranty Deed A.W. Shaffer & Wife to Mrs. Jane E. Upchurch Deed--Consideration $295.00 Dated the 9th day of May, 1872 Filed for registration on the _____ day of ______, 18__, at _____ o'clock ______ M., and registered in the office of the Register of Deeds for _____ County, N.C., this ____ day of ______ 18___, at ______ o'clock, ___M in Book No. ____ of Deeds, on page _______, &c. Book No. 34, Page 356 Register of Deeds." Documents Printed Upchurch, Jane Ellen Pace Shaffer, Abraham Webster "A. W." Shaffer, Alice Adelis

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32657

4/4

1/22/26, 5:08 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.004 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Email to a Friend

Send us Feedback or Make a Request

Collection Catalog Number Object Name Date Scope & Content

City of Raleigh Museum RCM2025.006.004 Deed December 14, 1899 A deed acknowledging the transfer of 50 acres of land in Wake County from

Archive Record

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32658

1/5

1/22/26, 5:08 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.004 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32658

James W. Upchurch and his wife, Jane E. Upchurch to their son, W.I. Upchurch. The deed states that it was paid for with "love and affection, ten dollars in hand paid and then good consideration". The deed was drafted on December 14, 1899 and signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of two members of the Poole family. The deed is handwritten on a double-sided State of North Carolina Deed - Shaffer's Form with pre-printed fields. The reverse side is signed by a Justice of the Peace and dated December 17, 1899. It reads as follows: "State of North Carolina, County of Wake Deed- Shaffer’s Form This deed made this 14th day of December 1899, by and between James W. Upchurch and Jane E. Upchurch his wife of the County of Wake and State of North Carolina, of the first part, and W. I. Upchurch of Wake County, North Carolina of the second part, Witnesseth, That said parties of the first part, for and in consideration of love and affection, ten dollars in hand paid and then good consideration hath bargained and sold and by these presents doth grant and convey unto the said party of the second part, A tract of the land of Fifty acres to be cut off from the western portion of the tract of land which was devised to James W. Upchurch by Kearney Upchurch by his last will and testament recorded in Book A, page 342 records in the Clerk’s office [illegible] of wills. The said fifty acres will include the residence of the pastor of the first part

2/5

1/22/26, 5:08 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.004 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

and will [illegible] back from Wake Forest Road in an eastern direction to such a point as will make the said marker of acres [illegible] from the land devised as of [illegible]. The parties of the first part also agree that the party of the second part shall have the use of the balance of the said tract of land devised to said James W. Upchurch by Kearney Upchurch, during the life time of the said parties of the first part, the said balance being about 40 acres. The parties of the first part also hereby convey to have of the second part one bay mare name Daisy. (This conveyance is made wherein the understanding and agreement between the parties [illegible] that the said party of the second part is to support and maintain the [illegible] of the first part so long as they shall live. To Have and to Hold the foregoing described lands and premises with the appurtenances unto the said party of the second part, __his_____ heirs and assigns forever. And the said __J. W. Upchurch + wife Jane_____, doth covenant to and with the said party of the second party that _they are_____ seized of said premises in fee, and _have___ good right so to convey the same; that the same are free from all incumbrance, except as herein described, and that _they___ will warrant and defend the title so conveyed against all persons whatsoever claiming the same. In Testimony Whereof, the said party of the first part hath hereunto set

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32658

3/5

1/22/26, 5:08 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.004 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

_their___ hands and seals, the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of W. W. Poole L. C. Poole J. W. Upchurch (seal) Jane E. Upchurch (seal) [REVERSE SIDE]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Wake County. I, _Justice of the Peace___, do hereby certify that _J. W. Upchurch and Jane E. Upchurch___ his wife, appeared before me this day, and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing deed of conveyance; and the said _Jane E. Upchurch___ being by me privately examined, separate and apart from her said husband, touching her voluntary execution of the same, doth state that she signed the same freely and voluntarily, without fear or compulsion of her said husband or of any other person, and that she doth still voluntarily assent thereto. Let the same, with this certificate, be registered. Witness my hand [illegible], this 17th day of December, 1899. L.W. Poole J. P. (seal) FULL COVENANT DEED James W. Upchurch and wife Jane E. Upchurch to W. I. Upchurch Date ____ 18___ Consideration ______ Filed for registration _________ 18___, at __o'clock _M., and registered in he office of the Register of Deeds for https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32658

4/5

1/22/26, 5:08 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.004 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Classification People

_______ County, N.C., on the ____day of _____, 18__, in Book ___ of Deeds, on page ___. __________, Register of Deeds. FEES: Probate, - - $___ Passing on Certificate, - ____ Registration, - - ____ $_______" Documents Printed Upchurch, Jane Ellen Pace Upchurch, James Wesley Upchurch, William Kearney Ivan

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32658

5/5

1/22/26, 5:09 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.005 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Email to a Friend

Send us Feedback or Make a Request

Archive Record

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32659

1/2

1/22/26, 5:09 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.005 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Collection Catalog Number Object Name Date Scope & Content

Classification People

City of Raleigh Museum RCM2025.006.005 Deed June 3, 1919 This deed is for Jane E. Upchurch selling land to W.I. Upchurch for $1,000 and other valuables in exchange for land and title. Documents Upchurch, William Kearney Ivan Upchurch, Jane Ellen Pace

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32659

2/2

1/22/26, 5:10 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.006 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Email to a Friend

Send us Feedback or Make a Request

Archive Record

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32660

1/2

1/22/26, 5:10 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.006 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Collection Catalog Number Object Name Date Scope & Content Classification People

City of Raleigh Museum RCM2025.006.006 Deed January 31, 1916 This is a deed from D.J. Robertson and Hattie May Robertson to William and Hallie Upchurch for land. Documents Montague, Hallie Verna Upchurch Upchurch, W.M.

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32660

2/2

1/22/26, 5:10 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.007 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Email to a Friend

Send us Feedback or Make a Request

Archive Record

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32661

1/2

1/22/26, 5:10 PM

City of Raleigh Museum - RCM2025.006.007 - City of Raleigh – HRM Program

Collection Catalog Number Object Name Year Range from Year Range to Scope & Content Classification

City of Raleigh Museum RCM2025.006.007 Survey, Land 1965 1966 This is a survey map of the estate of W.I. Upchurch from June 1965/September 1966. Drawings Maps

https://raleighhrmprogram.catalogaccess.com/archives/32661

2/2