Project Timeline

Current Status

• On September 10, 2026, CMS announced that the DYSA field project will not move forward at Madison Central Park. CMS stated that it will 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 process will require additional steps, including approval by the CMS Board.

• The community's focus has now shifted to the terms and protections included in the Joint Use Agreement, including long-term protection of Madison Central Park's flexible-use nature and a meaningful role for the community in future decisions affecting the property.

TIMELINE

The timeline below documents publicly available project milestones, resident communications, CMS correspondence, DYSA communications, and public records activity related to the proposed Pinewood athletic field project. It is intended to provide a chronological record of documented events and residents' efforts to obtain information, understand the project approval process, and participate in community engagement. The timeline will be updated as additional information becomes available.

To protect resident privacy, individual residents are identified throughout this timeline as Household A, Household B, and Household C. 

Last Updated September 9, 2026

Establishment of the Park | 2010-2014

2010

Madison Central Park was established through a city-supported grant initiative intended to preserve and enhance neighborhood recreational space. The project involved planning, public engagement, engineering, grading, zoning approvals, and coordination among multiple public agencies before the park was developed. [Documents available here]

Additionally,  on November 1, 2010 meeting notes were recorded by Lisa Charde regarding the creation of Madison Central Park.  Comments from Todd Sherrill, the CMS Site Manager are summarized in the document.  Highlighted in red Todd’s comments for mitigating the impact on the neighborhood. [Click here for meeting notes].

2011

Letter from CMS to Neighborhood and Grant Committee details the usage of the park by CMS. Here it's noted as a shared space where the Pinewood Elementary School would use this during school hours, and the neighborhood would use the space during after-school hours and on weekends. [Click here for document]

2014

Continued partnership between CMS and the Madison Park Neighborhood that led to more improvements for the school and the park with city of Charlotte funds / grant. [Click here for meeting materials from the Summit].

DYSA & CMS Execute Agreement Behind the Scenes | 2025 - Feb 2026

January 5, 2025

Chris Pineno, President of Dilworth Youth Sports Association (DYSA), signed the application for the proposed Extended Use Agreement. (See page 9 of the executed agreement).

February 1, 2026

The Extended Use Agreement was fully executed.

The agreement includes signatures from:

• Chris Pineno, President, Dilworth Youth Sports Association (DYSA)

• Chris Frye, Partner, Barringer Construction (DYSA)

• Shawn Renykhart, Division of Insurance & Risk Management, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

• Nicole Portee, Associate Superintendent of Operations, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

• Tim Ivey, Chief Operating Officer, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

• Dr. Crystal Hill, Superintendent, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

• Natashia Pegram, Principal, Pinewood Elementary School

During a review of publicly available Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education meeting agendas, minutes, and supporting materials, residents did not identify a public Board vote specifically authorizing execution of the Extended Use Agreement. This prompted subsequent questions regarding the approval process and the Board's role in approving the agreement.

Stakes Appear & Neighborhood Start Asking Questions | Late May - Mid July 2026

Early May 2026

Survey stakes appeared at Madison Central Park adjacent to Pinewood Elementary School, alerting nearby residents that activity was occurring on the property.

Household A contacted CMS Operations seeking information about the survey work. Mr. Ivey advised that there was a project involving 1 baseball field on the left side of the property.

Shortly after that conversation, the survey stakes were removed.

Mid-May 2026 

Household B contacted Mr. Ivey and Ms. Pegram after learning of the survey activity. No response was received from either party.

CMS Board Member Cynthia Stone responded to Household B stating that she had not previously been aware of the proposal and initially believed Mecklenburg County was involved before learning it was a CMS project.

Through a North Carolina Public Records Act request, residents obtained a copy of the executed Extended Use Agreement. The agreement detailed up to three baseball fields, batting cages, and associated infrastructure, rather than the single baseball field previously described to Household A by Mr. Ivey.

After reviewing the agreement, Household C submitted follow-up questions regarding the approval process, including whether a project involving permanent athletic construction had been presented to the elected Board of Education and through what process the agreement had been approved.

During subsequent communications, residents were advised that no signed or executed agreement existed. Residents responded by providing the fully executed agreement previously released by CMS through the public records request and requested clarification.

Late May/ Early June 2026

Household A, who had previously spoken with Mr. Ivey regarding the survey activity, contacted him again after learning of the executed agreement. Mr. Ivey stated that he would look into the matter. No additional information was provided over the following two months.

Ms. Stone asked Ms. Portee to contact Household C regarding their communication in mid-May. During a telephone conversation, Ms. Portee indicated that CMS would work toward arranging a meeting with project architects and this household. Household C subsequently followed up by email and telephone on three separate occasions over the following two months but did not receive a response from Ms. Portee.

June 6, 2026
Residents submitted two public records requests to Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools under the North Carolina Public Records Act.

• Request #26-412 seeks records relating to the selection of Pinewood, alternative sites considered, traffic and neighborhood analyses, community engagement, internal communications, planning documents, and drafts of the Extended Use Agreement.

  • CMS advised that locating responsive records could require reviewing approximately 12,500 emails (approximately 39 GB of data) and estimated more than 250 hours of staff time amounting to $11k. CMS offered an opportunity to reduce scope.  On June 8, residents subsequently narrowed and clarified the request to reduce its scope while preserving the core questions regarding site selection and project planning. The request remains open.

• Request #26-413 seeks records identifying comparable athletic partnership agreements entered into by CMS since 2015 to better understand how similar projects have been approved and structured. 

  • CMS responded by providing a link to the CMS Bond Construction website noting partial fulfillment. Residents did not identify responsive information addressing the request. Residents continue to seek records responsive to the request. The request remains open. 

June 24, 2026
Mr. Pineno advised Household B that he was working with CMS to identify dates for a 7 p.m. community meeting, with July 13 or July 14 discussed as potential options. 

July 8, 2026
Household B sent a follow-up email to DYSA and CMS requesting an update regarding the proposed community meeting and asking whether dates had been confirmed. No response was received.

Mid-July 2026

Household A followed up with Mr. Ivey regarding the project after not receiving additional information.

July 15, 2026

At 1:17 p.m., LaKeisha McMoore, Senior Administrative Assistant to Mr. Tim Ivey and Ms. Nicole Portee, emailed Household A, Mr. Pineno, and members of CMS Facilities inviting recipients to attend an on-site community meeting at Pinewood Elementary School scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on a weekday. Neither Household B, nor Household C were on the invitation.

Household A notified Household B.

At 1:45 p.m., Household B called Ms. McMoore expressing concern that a weekday morning meeting would prevent many working residents from attending. Household B also advised that approximately 50 households had expressed questions or concerns regarding the project.

Ms. McMoore stated that she had a meeting with Ms. Portee that afternoon and said either she or Ms. Portee would respond by the end of the day.

No response was received.

July 16, 2026

After not receiving a follow-up, Household B again called Ms. McMoore.  Ms. McMoore advised that she had not spoken with Ms. Portee the previous afternoon and that Ms. Portee was on vacation until July 27th. She stated that the meeting would remain scheduled as planned.

Household B requested that CMS either:

• Reschedule the meeting for an evening when working residents could attend, or

• Cancel the scheduled meeting and arrange a new date after Ms. Portee returned.

Ms. McMoore advised that she was not authorized to reschedule the meeting.

Household B then asked whether Mr. Ivey could authorize or coordinate a new meeting in Ms. Portee’s absence. Ms. McMoore explained that Mr. Ivey had asked Ms. Portee to handle the meeting planning and therefore would not make any scheduling changes in her absence. Ms. McMoore suggested that Household B contact Mr. Ivey directly.

Household B explained that Mr. Ivey had not been responsive to date and requested that the scheduling concerns instead be escalated internally. Ms. McMoore stated that she would reach out to Mr. Ivey. 

Another individual replied to Ms. McMoore’s meeting invitation email, copying Ms. Portee, Mr. Ivey, Mr. Pineno, and other CMS staff. The email reiterated that a weekday meeting at 8:30 a.m. would prevent many working residents from attending and respectfully requested that the meeting be rescheduled.

As of July 26th, no response had been received to either the individual's email or Household B’s request.

Household A, Household B and Household C, intended to attend the scheduled 8:30 a.m. meeting in order to, again, respectfully request that CMS schedule a separate evening community meeting so that working residents and other interested community members have a meaningful opportunity to participate. 

Madison Park Neighborhood Escalate Concerns for a Voice | Late July 2026

July 24, 2026 – Residents Request CMS Board Review

Residents submitted a formal request to CMS Board Chair Stephanie Sneed and District 5 Board Member Cynthia Stone requesting Board review of the proposed Madison Central Park/Pinewood athletic field project.

The correspondence summarized residents' concerns regarding the project's approval process, site selection, anticipated community benefit, project planning, and prior public engagement. Residents also provided a timeline of events and supporting project information. Residents requested the project be paused until relevant records could be provided and concerns addressed.

July 24, 2026 – Board Member Cynthia Stone Responds

Board Member Cynthia Stone responded that she had first become aware of the proposed project earlier in the spring and explained that efforts to arrange community discussions were already underway. She indicated residents would have two opportunities to participate and forwarded the correspondence to CMS staff involved with the project.

Residents later provided additional background regarding survey activity observed at the property, conflicting information residents had received regarding the project's scope, and requested that the designated neighborhood points of contact be included in future project communications. This website was also shared.

July 26, 2026 – Board Chair Stephanie Sneed Responds

Board Chair Stephanie Sneed thanked residents for providing a comprehensive overview of the project and stated that she would work to better understand the decision-making process. She also noted that, based on her initial understanding, the matter appeared to be an administrative action rather than one requiring Board approval.

July 26, 2026 (1:27 PM) – Residents Distribute Proposed Meeting Agenda

The day before the scheduled site visit, residents distributed a proposed agenda outlining the topics they hoped to discuss, including:

• Scheduling Community Meetings, Project status and approval process, Community benefit, Site selection, Project planning, Public records, Requested next steps

The agenda also explained that residents did not consider the July 27 gathering to satisfy the broader community engagement process they had requested because it had not been presented as a community meeting or coordinated through the neighborhood points of contact. Instead, residents proposed using the meeting to clarify the project's status, identify outstanding information, and establish expectations for future public engagement.

Residents also requested two evening community meetings, coordination with the designated resident points of contact, discussion of outstanding public records requests, and the analyses and documents supporting the proposed site selection.

July 26, 2026 (8:03 PM) – CMS Clarifies the Purpose of the July 27 Site Visit

Later that evening, CMS Associate Superintendent Nicole Portee responded that the July 27 gathering would serve as a site visit where CMS staff and residents could walk the property, discuss the proposed project, and hear residents' concerns directly.

Ms. Portee also advised that CMS intended to schedule a future community meeting to provide additional planning information, discuss potential timelines, and continue the conversation with the broader neighborhood. 

CMS says "community engagement not required" and DYSA changes its ask 4 times in 17 days | Late July-Early August 2026

July 27, 2026 – CMS Conducts Site Visit at Pinewood Elementary

Approximately six neighborhood households met with CMS, DYSA, and Board Member Cynthia Stone for an on-site discussion regarding the proposed project. Topics included the approval process, community engagement, site selection, traffic, safety, and neighborhood impacts.

During the discussion of the approval process, a household asked at what point community engagement occurs.

Mr. Ivey responded that community engagement isn't required because this is CMS-owned property.

Ms. Portee explained that, although community engagement was not required under that process, CMS nevertheless wanted to hear directly from the community.

The comment about community engagement not being required came during the first substantive meeting between CMS and residents regarding the proposed project. Residents had repeatedly requested that the meeting be held in the evening so working families could participate; CMS instead scheduled it for 8:30 AM on a Monday and refused requests to reschedule.

The exchange raised an important question that has continued throughout the process: If community input is not a required part of CMS Operations’ process, at what point—and before which decisions are made—is the community actually given an opportunity to influence the outcome?

[Read the complete Site Visit Record here ] 

July 28, 2026 – CMS Distributes Written Meeting Summary

Ms. Portee distributed a written summary of the July 27 site visit describing the discussion, noting that no decisions or agreements were reached during the meeting and stating that no plans had been approved at that time.

The email also reiterated CMS's commitment to schedule an evening community meeting, provide additional planning information, and continue discussions with residents.

July 31, 2026 – Household B Meets with President of DYSA

At Mr. Pineno's request, Household B met with Mr. Pineno. Household B noted, in summary, the objective information necessary to demonstrate that this particular project, at this particular scale, at this particular location, provides a net benefit to Pinewood Elementary and Madison Park has not yet been provided.

Household B explained to Chris that, based on the reasons he had provided throughout our discussion and site visit, they continued to hear an articulation of DYSA’s need for additional and more reliable field capacity rather than evidence of a need originating from Pinewood Elementary or Madison Park. The resident told him that, from their perspective, it appeared that DYSA had identified available CMS green space as a potential solution to its broader field-capacity problem and was then seeking to establish the community benefit of locating the project there. The analysis should work in the opposite direction: first establish a demonstrated need within the immediate community, then determine what type and scale of project, if any, appropriately addresses that need.  

Mr. Pineno spoke to the strong partnership between DYSA and Parks and Recreation—noting they had exhausted all options.

Mr. Pineno stated during that meeting that he intended to resubmit the proposal to CMS for two fields rather than three and there would be no phases. He said he gave "his word". The resident noted that reducing the proposal did not resolve the neighborhood’s fundamental concern: they had not provided data demonstrating a need for one field among the community and there was no commitment to neighborhood impact studies such as traffic, parking, stormwater, wildlife, or noise. She also noted that this turns a flexible-use community space used by the neighborhood on a daily basis, into a very narrow single-use site.  

[Read the Meeting Notes here]

August 3, 2026 – Article published in Charlotte Ledger written by daughter of a DYSA Commissioner. DYSA changes their ask for the third time in 9 days

[https://www.thecharlotteledger.com/p/charlotte-youth-sports-outgrow-existing-fields]

The very next business day after the meeting between Household B and Mr. Pineno, the Charlotte Ledger published an article. The article described DYSA’s challenge as having to share existing fields and characterized its alternative as developing something it could “call their own.” It described Phase 1 as two infields with backstops, followed by a Phase 2+ that would include a third field, permanent bathrooms, concession stands and an equipment building. During the July 27th site meeting DYSA did not mention this  vision of creating a hub and no concession stands or equipment building were mentioned. This is far beyond even their original contract of three fields and batting cages. 

The Ledger later explained (on August 6th) to residents that the interview occurred the week prior to the site visit. That means that on the July 27th site visit, we can only assume DYSA misled not only neighbors, but CMS as well.   

The article also explains that DYSA is pursuing this project because it has run out of field space and is seeking a long-term home rather than continuing to share fields elsewhere. They again detail their close partnership with Parks and Rec as well.

The article states that DYSA has been engaging with the community. The timeline tells a different story.

The author of the article, who is interning at the Charlotte Ledger, is the daughter of a DYSA Commissioner. This was not disclosed.

August 9, 2026 – Household B sends e-mail to CMS and DYSA

The e-mail documents Household B’s July 31 meeting with DYSA President Chris Pineno and formally outlines the information and review requested before further action, including demonstrated community need, potential impacts, site suitability, alternatives, CMS’s approval process, and outstanding public records. It also requests that residents receive the relevant information before a meaningful community meeting, that the meeting date and time be coordinated with neighborhood representatives prior to being announced, and that the neighborhood have two weeks notice.

[View e-mail here]

[View Attachment B. This is what the neighborhood requested be completed by CMS and DYSA]

August 12, 2026 – DYSA changes their ask for the fourth time in just 17 days

[https://www.thecharlotteledger.com/p/baseball-field-proposal-sparks-pushback-in-madison-park?gift_content=7ac17756-8e6b-4373-ac8c-dee94d230fea]

After The Charlotte Ledger’s initial coverage, Madison Park residents contacted the publication after learning that the article’s author is the daughter of a DYSA commissioner. That relationship was not disclosed in the article.

The Ledger subsequently published additional coverage in which DYSA returned to a two-field proposal. The two fields DYSA now says it intends to resubmit appear to correspond to the same two fields previously described as Phase 1 of its longer-range plans, which included a potential third field and additional facilities.

Residents were concerned that the follow-up article omitted significant context and documentation that had been provided to the reporter, including the 2010 CMS statement that organized sports fields would not be included in the park design, the history and intended shared use of Madison Central Park, and residents’ analysis showing that the Pinewood property is approximately 53% smaller by total acreage than the average of DYSA’s existing multi-field sites.

Residents also felt that several of their concerns were presented without the supporting context they had provided. For example, residents had questioned the proposed orientation of a baseball diamond toward the existing playground. The concern was not simply about the ages DYSA currently intends to program on the field; residents explained that when the field is not being used for organized league play, older children and outside adults may also use it, raising questions about the safety of children using the adjacent playground.

The structure of the article largely presented residents’ concerns followed by responses from DYSA President Chris Pineno, while several of the documents and facts residents had supplied in support of those concerns were not included.

The Ledger did not disclose the familial relationship between the reporter and a DYSA/Dilworth Little League commissioner in the article.

Although the shift from three fields to two may appear to be a compromise, the two fields DYSA now says it intends to resubmit appear to be the same two fields previously identified as Phase 1 of its longer-range plan. This raises an important question: is the two-field proposal actually a concession in response to community concerns, or simply the first phase of the plan DYSA intended to pursue all along? 

Madison Central Park Residents Speak Out | Late August 2026

August 22, 2026 – Three neighborhood representatives spoke at CMS Board Meeting

YouTube link not found. To be updated.

August 31, 2026 – WSOC News Coverage of the Save Madison Central Park cause

[Click here to view the coverage]

CMS Develops a "Solution" Without the Neighborhood | September 4, 2026

September 4, 2026 — CMS Announces a “Solution” Developed Without Neighborhood Representatives 

At exactly 4:00 PM on Friday, September 4, immediately before the holiday weekend, CMS Chief Operations Officer Tim Ivey emailed Pinewood families and community members announcing a September 10 community meeting—providing less than one week’s notice. 

The announcement came despite residents’ August 9 Attachment B, which specifically requested that CMS:

• provide outstanding participation data, impact studies, records and process information with adequate time for residents to review them before the next community meeting;

• coordinate the meeting date with neighborhood representatives before announcing it; 

• provide two weeks of planning; and

• allow meaningful community review before further material action was taken.

Those requests had not been fulfilled before the September 4 announcement, and neighborhood representatives were not contacted to coordinate the September 10 meeting date. Additionally, two important elected officials already have a prior public commitment at that exact time.

Of particular concern, Ivey’s email stated that since the July meeting, CMS had “worked with our partners to develop a solution that we believe addresses the needs of both the school and the surrounding community.” The email then invited residents to attend the September 10 meeting to “hear more about the solution.”

CMS did not identify the “partners” involved in developing the solution, and Madison Park neighborhood representatives were not involved in developing it. Residents therefore learned that a solution had already been developed with other parties before receiving the information they had requested or having an opportunity to review and respond to it.

This raised a fundamental concern about the nature of the engagement process: if a solution had already been developed with CMS’ partners, what role was community input intended to play at the September 10 meeting?

Given DYSA's existing partnerships with other public agencies, understanding who had a seat at the table matters.

CMS Changes Course & Announces Path Forward | September 10, 2026 

On September 10, CMS held a 6 P.M. community meeting at Pinewood Elementary regarding Madison Central Park. The meeting drew a strong neighborhood turnout and was attended by CMS staff Tim Ivey and Nicole Portee and CMS Board Vice Chair Dee Rankin.

The meeting followed months of resident requests for information, documentation, impact analyses and meaningful community involvement regarding the fully executed CMS/DYSA Extended Use Agreement and proposed athletic development at Madison Central Park.

CMS Announces the DYSA Project Will Not Move Forward

During the meeting, CMS announced that the DYSA field project will not move forward at Madison Central Park and that CMS will work with DYSA to identify an alternative location.

CMS acknowledged the history of Madison Central Park and the concerns shared by residents and expressed a desire to find a path forward that responds to the community.

This represented a significant change in direction following months of resident outreach, public-records requests, meetings, community organizing and public comments before the CMS Board.

CMS Proposes a Master Joint Use Agreement

CMS announced that it plans to work with Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation to formally add Madison Central Park to an existing Master Joint Use Agreement between CMS and Mecklenburg County.

The addition will still need to proceed through the approval process, including a vote by the CMS Board.

The proposed Joint Use Agreement therefore becomes the next major issue for the community: not simply whether Madison Central Park is added to the agreement, but what the agreement ultimately says about how this specific property may be used and what protections are included.

CMS Says No Formal Agreement Currently Governs the Property

During the meeting, CMS stated that no formal agreement currently governs Madison Central Park.

Residents discussed the extensive historical documentation surrounding the property, including the City-supported grant process, neighborhood investment, CMS correspondence and records regarding the establishment and intended use of Madison Central Park.

The distinction is particularly important because the historical record contains substantial documentation regarding the park's creation and shared school/community use, yet CMS does not consider those documents to formally govern the property today.

This underscores why residents believe whatever protections are established now should be clear, specific and durable.

CMS Retains Final Approval Authority

CMS also confirmed that CMS retains final approval authority over future changes to the property.

Residents asked what would prevent another proposal involving dedicated organized-league facilities or another significant change in use from being brought forward in the future.

The community emphasized that its goal is not to prevent recreational improvements, school activities or children from using the park for sports. The goal is to preserve Madison Central Park as flexible-use community green space rather than allowing it to be converted into dedicated facilities for organized sports leagues or other uses that would fundamentally change its character.

CMS Says Community Engagement Is Not Required

A significant portion of the discussion concerned the community's role in future decisions.

CMS COO Tim Ivey stated multiple times during the meeting that CMS is not required to obtain community input before making decisions regarding the property.

This was consistent with the position communicated to residents during the July 27 site visit, when residents were told that community engagement was not required because the property is owned by CMS.

Residents expressed concern that without a written notification and engagement requirement, the community has no guaranteed opportunity to learn about or provide input on significant future changes before decisions are made.

Residents Ask for Long-Term Protections and a Seat at the Table

As CMS and Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation move forward with the Joint Use Agreement, residents are asking for:

• A seat at the table: An opportunity for community representatives and independent legal counsel to review the proposed agreement before it is finalized or executed.

• Meaningful, long-term protection: Clear protections for Madison Central Park's flexible-use nature.

• Community notification and input: A written requirement that the community be notified and given an opportunity for input before significant future changes are proposed or approved.

• Independent review of future impacts: At a minimum, appropriate independent traffic, parking, stormwater, environmental and noise studies before significant changes to the property are considered.

Residents are not prescribing a single legal mechanism at this point. Potential protections could include a deed restriction, deed amendment, strong site-specific permitted-use language in the Joint Use Agreement, or another legally enforceable, recorded protection.

What Remains Unresolved

At the September 10 meeting, CMS did not commit to:

• a deed restriction or another specific legally enforceable long-term protection for Madison Central Park;

• independent or community legal review of the Joint Use Agreement before it is finalized; or

• a written requirement guaranteeing advance community notification and an opportunity for input before significant future changes to the property.

As a result, although the decision not to move forward with the DYSA project represents an important change in direction, questions about the long-term governance and protection of Madison Central Park remain unresolved.

CMS Provides Written Follow-Up

Following the meeting, CMS provided residents with a written summary of its proposed path forward.

CMS' written follow-up states that the community has historically used the property for recreation and informal park activities and that no formal agreement currently governs its use and responsibility.

CMS described its goal as establishing a sustainable framework for the property, continuing community access, providing clearer maintenance and oversight, and protecting the existing trees and natural character of the site.

CMS also stated that the proposed arrangement would preserve “flexibility for future district planning needs.”

The community continues to seek clarity regarding the specific protections, permitted uses and community involvement provisions that will ultimately be included in the Joint Use Agreement.

[Read CMS September 10  Follow-Up]

Help Us Complete the Meeting Record

Save Madison Park is compiling key notes from the September 10 community meeting to help maintain an accurate record of the discussion.

If you attended the meeting, please share anything you remember about questions that were asked, responses provided by CMS, or other important statements made during the meeting. We are especially interested in firsthand recollections of what was said or occurred, rather than opinions or interpretations.

Submit September 10 Meeting Notes: https://forms.gle/T8mvihPTVBPqpSv9A
 

Where We Go From Here

The September 10 announcement represents an important accomplishment for the community: the DYSA field project will not move forward at Madison Central Park.

However, Madison Central Park is not yet permanently protected. The community's focus has now shifted to the Joint Use Agreement, meaningful long-term protection of the park's flexible-use nature, and ensuring that residents have a lasting voice in significant future decisions affecting the property.