On July 27, 2026, representatives from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS), the Dilworth Youth Sports Association (DYSA), District 5 Board Member Cynthia Stone, and approximately six neighborhood households met at Pinewood Elementary School and Madison Central Park to discuss the proposed athletic field project.
This record provides a chronological summary of the discussion based on notes taken by residents after the meeting. It is intended to document the principal topics discussed, questions raised by residents, and responses provided by CMS and DYSA. It is not a verbatim transcript.
This record is provided to supplement the Project Timeline, which summarizes the overall sequence of documented project milestones, communications, and public records activity.
This was a ~45 minute site visit at Pinewood Elementary and Madison Central Park.
CMS participants included Nicole Portee, Associate Superintendent of Operations; Tim Ivey, Chief Operating Officer; Charles ("Bob") Sorrell, Real Estate Specialist; and Nathaniel Jones, Facilities Manager.
DYSA participants included Chris Pineno, President, and Matt Pearson, Division Commissioner.
Ms. Portee took notes throughout the discussion.
Historical Context
The meeting opened with residents providing historical context regarding Madison Central Park, including the neighborhood's development, the park's longstanding recreational use, volunteer improvements, tree planting efforts, and its role as a shared community green space.
Ms. Stone also recalled children regularly using the park during earlier years. A resident responded that, while the park continues to serve the neighborhood today, approximately 68% of the property's original open green space has been lost over time, making the remaining publicly accessible green space increasingly significant to the surrounding community.
Project Status and Approval Process
Mr. Sorrell presented the project rendering and described it as the proposed project.
Residents noted that the rendering displayed during the meeting was the same rendering contained in the executed Extended Use Agreement.
Residents asked how CMS' repeated characterization of the project as "proposed" related to the already executed Extended Use Agreement, which depicted three baseball fields and batting cages.
Mr. Ivey then described the approval process, explaining that projects proceed through an application and review process before advancing.
During that explanation, Mr. Ivey indicated that the project had not yet reached Mr. Jones for approval. Mr. Jones responded directly that he had already approved it.
The discussion then shifted to permitting, phased implementation, and additional future approvals.
Throughout the discussion, residents repeatedly returned to the executed Extended Use Agreement and sought clarification regarding how it related to CMS' description of the project as a "proposed project," the phased implementation discussed during the meeting, and the approvals that CMS indicated still remained. The discussion later shifted to other project topics, including community engagement, site selection, and neighborhood impacts.
Community Engagement
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.
Property Use
A household asked what would prevent CMS from constructing an apartment building on the property.
Mr. Ivey responded that the property's use could not change.
Residents responded that permanently converting flexible neighborhood green space into dedicated baseball facilities represented a change in how the property would function for the surrounding community.
The discussion then shifted to the park's existing recreational use and the anticipated community benefit of the proposed project.
Operational Need
DYSA explained that the organization had reached capacity with its existing field inventory and needed additional field capacity.
Residents noted that, by counting the baseball diamonds at each facility listed on DYSA's website, they had identified approximately 96 baseball diamonds across the locations where DYSA indicates it has field access.
DYSA representatives responded that they were unfamiliar with how that figure had been calculated. Residents explained that the total was derived by reviewing each location listed on DYSA's website and counting the baseball diamonds at those sites.
The discussion then shifted to the geographic distribution of facilities. Residents noted that, based on the facilities listed on DYSA's website, DYSA utilizes 15 baseball diamonds within a five-mile radius of Madison Central Park. .
DYSA confirmed they believed that number to be fairly accurate, but that their enrollment figure required additional space.
Residents asked whether Parks and Recreation or other alternative locations had been evaluated.
Mr. Pineno responded that DYSA had explored numerous alternative locations and believed it exhausted available options.
A resident suggested an additional potential alternate location. Mr. Pineno took note of the location.
During this discussion, Mr. Ivey stated several times that CMS had never undertaken a project of this kind before. Ms. Portee also confirmed that understanding during the discussion.
Community Benefit and Site Selection
Residents asked how many Pinewood Elementary students and Madison Park children were enrolled in DYSA. This would, in turn, quantify how many children in the immediately surrounding area would use the facilities.
Mr. Pineno and Mr. Pearson responded that the surrounding neighborhood falls within DYSA's participation boundary.
Residents responded that residing within a participation boundary is different from demonstrating that the Pinewood project primarily serves the surrounding neighborhood.
Residents referenced other Extended Use Agreements in which anticipated community benefit had been quantified. In contrast, residents noted that the Pinewood agreement stated only that the project could serve additional participants without estimating how many Pinewood Elementary students or Madison Park residents were expected to use the facilities.
Residents also referenced DYSA's Alexander Graham Middle School Extended Use Agreement, dated February 1, 2026, which states: "We estimate that 90% of our registrants live within a 3-mile radius of Freedom Park."
Residents noted that Madison Central Park is located near the outer edge of that three-mile area and asked how many participants were expected to come specifically from the Pinewood Elementary attendance area or the surrounding Madison Park neighborhood.
During that discussion, Mr. Pineno looked to Mr. Pearson and stated, "We probably need to update that," referring to the previously submitted statistic.
Comparison with Other Sites
DYSA referenced baseball facilities near Park Road Baptist Church as an example of fields located near residential property.
Ms. Stone observed that the Park Road Baptist site represented a very different setting than Madison Central Park.
Mr. Pineno responded that neighboring residents there had not expressed similar concerns and that there was “a house next to it”.
Residents then asked how many baseball fields existed at that location. After confirming there was one field, residents reiterated that if the proposal involved a single field, the neighborhood likely would not be objecting. Residents explained that their concerns centered on the overall scale of the proposed complex rather than the existence of a baseball field.
Residents noted that, in their view, the Park Road Baptist Church location differs from Madison Central Park in several respects, including roadway access, surrounding traffic patterns, and the density of nearby single-family homes.
Traffic, Parking, and Neighborhood Impacts
Residents asked whether any traffic studies had been completed.
No traffic study or parking analysis was presented during the meeting.
Mr. Pearson stated that the initial phase would involve two practice fields and discussed anticipated practice participation.
Residents noted that even practices could involve multiple teams, coaches, parents, and vehicles and asked how anticipated traffic had been evaluated. Residents also noted that nothing discussed during the meeting identified restrictions limiting future use exclusively to practices.
The discussion concluded without a traffic analysis being presented.
Playground Safety
Residents questioned the orientation of the proposed fields toward the existing playground.
Mr. Pearson explained that the layout created additional usable open space between the two diamonds in "phase one" and stated that the intended age group would generally be unable to hit baseballs that distance.
Residents responded that because the fields would remain publicly accessible when not scheduled, others could still use the baseball diamonds including ages that could hit a ball at a distance which would pose a danger to children playing on the playground. Mr. Pearson responded that anyone of any age could do that currently. Residents clarified that constructing dedicated baseball diamonds would create a different pattern of activity than currently exists in the park .
Restroom Facilities
When residents asked about restroom facilities, DYSA stated that a portable restroom could be provided.
Residents questioned whether that solution would adequately accommodate children and families using multiple areas of the park.
Meeting Conclusion
Ms. Portee concluded the approximately 45-minute discussion by summarizing the principal topics raised, including traffic, safety, neighborhood impacts, community access, and DYSA's stated need for additional athletic field capacity.
Residents added that one central unresolved question remained whether the proposed project primarily benefits the surrounding Pinewood Elementary and Madison Park community.
Ms. Portee stated that CMS would conduct additional due diligence and confirmed that another community meeting would be scheduled.
Residents requested that future meeting dates be coordinated through the designated neighborhood points of contact, in the evening, and not be scheduled during the second half of August. Ms. Portee agreed that future meeting information would be provided through those representatives once a date had been established.