CMS announced that the DYSA field project will not move forward at Madison Central Park and that it will work with DYSA to identify an alternative location.
The information below documents the questions residents raised, what was learned through public records and direct discussions, and why residents questioned whether converting Madison Central Park from flexible-use community green space into dedicated baseball facilities was appropriate for this location.
Many of these project-specific concerns were resolved when CMS changed course. Others—particularly long-term protections, community notification and meaningful public input—remain relevant as CMS and Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation consider a future framework for Madison Central Park.
Residents consistently supported opportunities for children to participate in sports. The central question was more specific:
What demonstrated that converting Madison Central Park into dedicated baseball facilities would primarily benefit Pinewood Elementary and the surrounding Madison Park community?
During a July 31 meeting with a neighborhood representative, DYSA President Chris Pineno was asked directly about participation by current Pinewood Elementary students.
Mr. Pineno stated that current Pinewood student participation in DYSA was “close to zero.” No data was identified during that discussion demonstrating existing Pinewood student demand for the proposed fields.
Mr. Pineno also described the challenges of increasing Pinewood participation as a “tough nut to crack” and explained that the project was really intended for Madison Park.
Mr. Pineno stated that there were approximately 20–30 children within Madison Park participating in DYSA.
However, underlying data was not provided during the discussion establishing how “Madison Park” was defined for that estimate or verifying how many current DYSA participants actually lived within the established neighborhood boundary and their relevate age groups. This did not substantiate one field, let alone a baseball complex.
Residents continued to request that information.
The July 31 discussion also helped clarify DYSA’s underlying need.
Mr. Pineno explained that DYSA shares fields with other leagues and organizations, competes for scheduling availability, maintains facilities across multiple locations, and would benefit operationally from having multiple fields consolidated at one location.
Residents acknowledged those organizational considerations while continuing to ask a different question:
What objective information demonstrated that Pinewood Elementary or Madison Park had an unmet need for dedicated baseball fields that warranted converting this particular community resource?
The project represented substantially more than occasional recreational use of existing open space. This turned a flexible-use space into a very narrow-use space for a private entity.
The fully executed February 2026 CMS/DYSA Extended Use Agreement contemplated up to three baseball/softball fields, batting cages and associated athletic infrastructure at Madison Central Park.
By the July 31 discussion, Pineno stated that DYSA intended to submit a revised plan for two fields. One business day later, it was beyond the scope of the agreement and named concession stands, an equipment building, and a "place to call their own". DYSA proceeds to change their ask four times in 17 days. [See here for the full account]
Pineno confirmed that use six days per week remained contemplated. The executed agreement detailed six months out of the year.
Residents noted that those months substantially overlap with the time of year when neighborhood children and families are most likely to use the park and surrounding outdoor spaces.
Residents specifically asked whether the fields would be used only for practices.
Mr. Pineno suggested that as a concession, the first year could potentially be negotiated as practice-only. When asked what would happen after the first year, he explained that, if the first year went well, use would then move to games.
No objective criteria were identified during that discussion for determining whether the first year had “gone well,” how neighborhood impacts would be evaluated, or who would make that determination.
For that reason, residents did not consider “practice fields” an accurate description of the contemplated long-term use.
Residents repeatedly asked why the project required two fields rather than one and what demonstrated the need for that scale at this particular location.
Mr. Pineno identified three primary advantages of locating two fields together: efficiency, ease of maintenance and cost savings.
He explained that servicing two fields at one location would be more efficient than traveling to separate locations to maintain individual fields.
Residents understood the operational benefit to DYSA but continued to distinguish between why two fields at one location would benefit DYSA and why Madison Park or Pinewood needed two fields.
Resident research identified approximately 94 baseball/softball diamonds across locations used by DYSA. Mr. Pineno explained that DYSA does not have exclusive or unrestricted control over all of those fields and must compete with other leagues and organizations for availability.
Residents also identified 15 existing diamonds at DYSA-used locations within approximately five miles of Madison Park. DYSA agreed with the figure of 15 and again explained that DYSA must compete with other organizations for their use.
The discussion therefore clarified that DYSA’s challenge was not simply the absence of baseball diamonds near Madison Park, but obtaining sufficiently reliable access to field capacity.
Residents repeatedly requested independent analysis of the potential effects of the project before permanent changes were made to the property.
During the July 31 discussion, Mr. Pineno confirmed that none of the following studies had been performed at that time:
Traffic • Parking • Noise • Stormwater • Wildlife/Environmental Impacts
Mr. Pineno specifically confirmed again that no traffic or parking study had been performed for the Pinewood project.
This was significant to residents because the project contemplated a substantial change in both the nature and intensity of use without objective analysis of how that change could affect surrounding streets, homes, drainage, noise conditions or the existing environment.
Organized practices and games can generate concentrated vehicle arrivals and departures. Residents asked whether existing school parking was sufficient, whether neighborhood streets would absorb overflow parking, and how six-day-per-week use could affect surrounding residents.
No project-specific traffic or parking analysis was ever completed.
Madison Central Park is adjacent to Little Hope Creek, and residents raised concerns about grading, drainage and changes to existing surfaces.
Residents requested a professional stormwater evaluation rather than assuming what effect, if any, construction of athletic facilities would have on runoff, the creek or surrounding properties.
No stormwater study was ever completed.
Residents similarly requested objective evaluation of potential noise and environmental effects before the property was materially altered.
No noise study or wildlife/environmental assessment was ever completed..
Madison Central Park is not unused land.
The property functions as flexible-use space supporting school activities, neighborhood recreation, walking, play, gathering and other informal uses. Its existing features include a walking trail, playground, disc golf, school garden and open green space.
Residents’ concern was therefore not simply whether baseball qualifies as recreation.
It was the difference between flexible-use green space that can accommodate many activities and purpose-built athletic facilities dedicated primarily to organized league use.
Residents are not seeking to prevent recreational improvements, school activities or children from playing sports. The concern was conversion of flexible-use community green space into dedicated facilities for organized sports leagues or other uses that would fundamentally change its character.
Residents also questioned whether Madison Central Park was an appropriate site for a multi-field project.
Resident analysis found that the available Pinewood/Madison Central Park site was approximately 53% smaller than the average multi-field DYSA location reviewed, while other multi-field locations generally had larger buffers, different surrounding land uses or existing athletic infrastructure.
A resident asked why the proposed fields were located on the portion of the property closer to surrounding residences.
DYSA representatives explained that placing the fields on the other side of the property would require removing trees.
Residents responded that this raised a broader site-suitability question: if preserving those trees while accommodating two fields required moving organized athletic activity closer to existing homes, was two fields the appropriate scale for this site?
A second resident asked why the baseball diamonds were facing the playground. DYSA replied saying that this was the only way they would "fit". Residents expressed concerns regarding the fact that older children could use the baseball diamonds when not in use by the league. Gating the diamonds, would then not allow community access. So again, why two, why there, why in that arrangement?
No site-suitability analysis addressing that tradeoff was identified during the discussion.
Residents repeatedly asked what other locations had been evaluated before converting Madison Central Park.
Pineno stated that he had personally spoken with Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation and had been told that suitable additional space was not available.
He also explained that DYSA had been late pursuing Park & Recreation opportunities because it had been relying on CMS arrangements and therefore had access to only a limited number of Park & Recreation diamonds that it shared with other organizations.
No written Park & Recreation analysis, site inventory or documented alternatives analysis was provided during the July 31 discussion identifying which locations had been evaluated, what criteria were applied, or why particular alternatives were rejected.
Residents also raised other potential locations, including the Language Academy property. Pineno stated that DYSA would not pursue that location because it would not engage with a private entity for field space.
On September 10, CMS announced that the DYSA field project would not move forward at Madison Central Park and that CMS would work with DYSA to identify an alternative location.
As the project evolved, residents became increasingly concerned not only with what was being proposed at a particular moment, but with what could happen later. As noted above, the scope changed 4 times in 17 days.
During the July 31 discussion, residents specifically asked how they could know that a two-field project would not later expand.
Pineno stated that DYSA was “only submitting that” and gave his word that DYSA would not subsequently return seeking additional expansion.
The neighborhood representative explained that an individual assurance would not provide durable protection and that any meaningful limitation on future expansion would need to be memorialized in writing.
No written restriction preventing future expansion was identified during the discussion.
Subsequent public reporting described a broader long-term vision for the site that included additional facilities. That changing public description reinforced residents’ request for one clearly defined written scope and durable written limitations.
That concern remains relevant today as the community considers what protections should be included in the future framework for Madison Central Park.
One of the most significant concerns throughout the process was when the surrounding community learned about the project and when residents were given an opportunity to participate.
During the July 31 discussion, Mr. Pineno stated that DYSA had not conducted neighborhood outreach before the project advanced.
He explained that DYSA had asked CMS what process it was required to follow and that neighborhood engagement had not been identified as part of that process.
Residents instead became aware that something was happening after discovering survey stakes in Madison Central Park and began seeking information about what was being proposed.
Residents subsequently requested records, supporting data, impact studies, clarification of the approval process and meaningful opportunities for community participation.
At both the July 27 site visit and CMS’ September 10 community meeting, COO Tim Ivey stated multiple times that CMS is not required to obtain community input before making decisions regarding the property.
That issue remains unresolved even though the DYSA field project will not move forward.
Residents are now asking that any future framework for Madison Central Park include written advance notification and a meaningful opportunity for community input before significant future changes are approved.
On September 10, CMS announced that the DYSA field project would not move forward at Madison Central Park and that CMS would work with DYSA to identify an alternative location.
CMS also announced plans to work with Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation to formally add Madison Central Park to an existing Master Joint Use Agreement.
That was an important change in direction.
As a result, many of the project-specific concerns documented on this page are no longer prospective impacts at Madison Central Park. They are preserved here as part of the record of the 2026 project and the information that informed residents’ advocacy.
Other issues remain directly relevant, particularly:
Clear, durable protection of Madison Central Park’s flexible-use nature
Clear written parameters governing significant future changes
Advance community notification
A meaningful opportunity for community input
Appropriate due diligence before significant future development
The community’s focus has therefore shifted from the DYSA field project itself to ensuring that the framework put in place now provides meaningful, long-term protection for Madison Central Park.