Residents have reviewed public records, agreements, historical imagery, parcel data, zoning information, and comparable baseball facilities to better understand the proposed Pinewood project.
The observations below are based on documents and research reviewed by residents.
Residents reviewed comparison locations frequently referenced in discussions about the project, including Alexander Graham Middle School and Sedgefield Middle School.
• Alexander Graham already had an existing baseball field before its agreement with DYSA.
• Sedgefield already had an existing baseball field before its agreement with DYSA.
• Pinewood does not currently have the proposed baseball fields in the area identified for development.
• The Pinewood agreement contemplates construction of new baseball infrastructure, including up to three baseball/softball fields and batting cages.
Residents believe there is an important distinction between using an existing athletic facility and constructing new athletic infrastructure on neighborhood open space.
Residents reviewed publicly available parcel information and site layouts for comparable school-based and park-based baseball facilities.
• Pinewood is approximately 53% smaller than comparable multi-field sites reviewed.
• Many comparison sites are located on larger campuses, athletic complexes, or park properties.
• Several comparison locations provide greater separation between athletic facilities and nearby homes.
• Many comparison locations already contain established athletic infrastructure.
Residents are seeking a better understanding of how Pinewood was selected relative to larger available sites.
Several locations are frequently cited as examples of successful baseball facilities.
• Many comparison locations already contained baseball fields before entering into agreements with DYSA.
• Many comparison sites benefit from larger campus footprints, adjacent park support areas, or established athletic complexes.
• Several comparison locations provide greater buffering or separation from nearby homes.
• Pinewood combines three characteristics that residents believe are important:
A smaller overall footprint
Direct residential adjacency
Construction of new athletic infrastructure
Residents believe these differences should be considered when evaluating whether Pinewood is comparable to other locations.
Historical imagery and public records indicate substantial changes to the Pinewood property over time.
• Approximately 68% of Pinewood’s original open space has been lost since 2010.
• School expansion, parking areas, playgrounds, and other infrastructure have reduced the amount of remaining open land.
• The surrounding population has continued to grow during the same period.
Residents are asking how remaining neighborhood green space should be balanced against future athletic development.
Residents reviewed publicly available information regarding baseball facilities and DYSA field locations throughout the area.
• Multiple baseball facilities exist within a short drive of Pinewood.
• DYSA currently operates across a large regional network of field locations.
• Existing locations include schools, parks, athletic complexes, and shared-use recreational facilities.
Residents are seeking greater transparency regarding site-selection criteria and alternative locations that were evaluated.
Residents reviewed the North Carolina statute and CMS policies governing recreational use of school property.
• CMS policies allow outside organizations to use and improve school athletic facilities.
• Many recent comparison agreements reviewed by residents involve existing athletic facilities rather than construction of new multi-field complexes.
• In the statute it references construction of a field (singular).
• Residents are seeking clarification regarding how the Pinewood proposal compares to arrangements historically implemented under the Extended Use program.
Residents believe understanding the context and intended use of Extended Use Agreements is important when evaluating projects of this scale.
Residents have reviewed project documents and public records related to the proposal.
• Some residents report first learning about the project after survey stakes appeared on the property.
• Residents have requested a clearer public timeline showing key decisions, approvals, and project milestones.
• Questions remain regarding when agreements were negotiated, executed, approved, and communicated to the surrounding community.
Residents believe transparency and community participation are important when neighborhood open space is being considered for permanent redevelopment. When the park was established in 2010 with a city backed grant, there was an extensive process regarding research of impacts, public approvals, involvement of elected officials, etc.
Click here for a detailed timeline.
Residents noted that project participants identified in public documents include individuals with experience in athletic field development and construction.
Residents believe all project stakeholders, timelines, site-selection criteria, and decision-making processes should be clearly communicated to the community.