This account was written by Household B and details a meeting with Chris Pineno, DYSA President, on July 31.
July 31 Discussion with DYSA President Chris Pineno
Pinewood Elementary / Madison Central Park Extended Use Proposal
Purpose of This Document
On July 31, I met individually with DYSA President Chris Pineno after he reached out to discuss the DYSA resubmission for fields at Pinewood Elementary/Madison Central Park. We discussed the need the project is intended to address, the basis for its proposed scale, potential impacts on the surrounding community, and alternatives that have been considered.
At the outset of our conversation, I made clear that I was not speaking on behalf of the neighborhood as a whole and did not have authority to represent the community’s collective position. I could speak only for myself while also reiterating concerns and questions that had been raised by multiple surrounding residents. Any views or potential areas of compromise I discussed should therefore not be interpreted as representing a community consensus or commitment.
These notes are intended to document my understanding of that discussion so that CMS, DYSA, and surrounding residents can work from the same factual record. If any portion of the discussion has been misunderstood or inaccurately characterized, I welcome clarification or correction.
The conversation was helpful in better understanding DYSA’s perspective. In particular, Chris explained the challenges DYSA experiences obtaining reliable field access and the operational advantages DYSA sees in having multiple fields at a single location.
At the same time, the conversation reinforced a fundamental unresolved question: while DYSA has articulated why additional dedicated field capacity would benefit DYSA, what objective data or analysis demonstrates that two baseball fields at Pinewood/Madison Central Park are needed by the immediate Pinewood/Madison Park community and that converting this existing flexible-use space would leave the school and surrounding neighborhood the same or better off?
That distinction was central to our discussion.
I. Process and Standard for Evaluating the Proposal
1. Community Engagement and Neighborhood Outreach
I asked Chris about community engagement before the proposal advanced.
Chris stated that DYSA had not conducted neighborhood outreach. He explained that DYSA had asked CMS what process it was required to follow and that neighborhood engagement was not identified as part of that process.
Regardless of whether CMS or DYSA was formally responsible for initiating outreach, the practical result was that surrounding residents were not meaningfully involved while a substantial change to a longstanding school and neighborhood resource was being developed.
Residents instead became aware that something was happening after discovering stakes placed in Madison Central Park and began trying to determine what was being proposed.
Since then, residents have repeatedly sought information, supporting data, impact studies, clarification regarding the approval process, and an opportunity to participate meaningfully before the project moves further forward.
This distinction is important. The concern is not simply that residents were consulted and disagreed with the outcome. The concern is that substantial planning advanced before the residents immediately surrounding the property understood what was contemplated or had an opportunity to provide input. Furthermore, this contradicts the statement that this is “for the Madison Park community”. If that was the case, we would have been involved from the outset and would not have learned of the proposal by coming across stakes in the park and subsequently pursuing public-records requests.
2. Requested Impact Studies Have Not Been Performed
I asked Chris specifically about the independently conducted impact studies residents have requested.
Chris confirmed that none of the following studies had been performed to date:
Traffic
Parking
Noise
Stormwater
Wildlife/environmental impacts
Chris repeated the requested studies back at the end of our discussion, indicating that he understood what residents were requesting. He did not make a commitment during our conversation that DYSA would have them conducted.
I also raised existing articles regarding traffic and parking problems associated with activity at other locations used by DYSA. I noted that some of this reporting describes significant traffic and parking challenges and includes comments attributed to DYSA itself regarding those issues.
I raised this because the potential for traffic and parking impacts at Pinewood is not a concern that should simply be assumed away. If similar issues have occurred at other locations, that history makes it particularly important to evaluate the potential impacts at this site before moving forward.
Chris confirmed that no traffic or parking study had been performed for the proposed Pinewood project.
More broadly, residents are being asked to evaluate a significant change in both the nature and intensity of use of this property without objective analysis of its potential effects. Without the requested studies, residents do not have objective information regarding how the proposed use could affect surrounding streets, parking, homes, drainage, noise conditions, or the existing environment.
3. Community Standard: The Neighborhood Should Be the Same or Better Off
I explained to Chris that we need to understand not merely what DYSA gains from the proposal, but what the project means for the people and school that already use and surround this property.
I stated that we need to ensure the project is actually for our community and that appropriate studies should demonstrate that the neighborhood would not be made worse off by the proposed change.
Residents are not asking that Madison Central Park remain unchanged simply for the sake of preventing change. The standard I believe should be applied is straightforward: if a longstanding school and neighborhood resource is going to be materially changed, the change should maintain or improve the community rather than diminish it.
Determining that requires objective information regarding both the proposed benefits and potential impacts.
At present, the requested impact studies have not been performed.
4. Flexible-Use Space Versus Specialized Athletic Use
Madison Central Park currently functions as flexible open space that can accommodate school, neighborhood, informal recreational, and other community uses.
The proposed project would convert a significant portion of that space into purpose-built baseball facilities intended for organized league use.
This distinction matters.
The relevant question is not simply whether baseball itself is a recreational use. It is whether converting flexible-use space available for a variety of purposes into substantially more specialized organized-sports use represents a net improvement for the broader school and neighborhood community.
Evaluating the proposal therefore requires considering both what would be added and what flexibility would be lost.
II. Who Is the Intended Beneficiary?
5. Current Pinewood Participation Is “Close to Zero”
I asked Chris directly about participation by current Pinewood Elementary students.
Chris stated that current Pinewood student participation in DYSA is “close to zero.”
This is particularly relevant because Pinewood Elementary is the school whose property would be altered to accommodate the proposed baseball facilities.
No data was identified during our discussion demonstrating existing Pinewood student demand for the proposed fields.
6. Pinewood Is a “Tough Nut to Crack”; Project Is Really for Madison Park
We discussed the barriers to increasing participation among Pinewood students.
Chris described overcoming those barriers so that Pinewood children could participate as a “tough nut to crack.” He expressed that he wished DYSA could help overcome those challenges, but explained that the project was really for Madison Park.
That clarification is important.
If current Pinewood participation is “close to zero,” barriers to meaningful Pinewood participation are difficult to overcome, and Madison Park is instead the intended community beneficiary, then the relevant question becomes whether there is demonstrated demand for two baseball fields among children actually residing within Madison Park.
7. Madison Park Participation — Approximately 20–30 Children
Chris stated that there are approximately 20–30 children within Madison Park.
I explained that I want to understand the number of current DYSA participants who actually reside within the established Madison Park neighborhood boundary—not children located within a generalized radius of Madison Park or the proposed site.
No underlying data was provided during our discussion establishing how “Madison Park” was defined for purposes of the 20–30 estimate or verifying the number of current participants residing within the actual neighborhood boundary.
I therefore continue to request current participation data based specifically on the Madison Park neighborhood boundary.
If Madison Park is the stated beneficiary, this information is central to evaluating the asserted community need.
8. DYSA Organizational Need Versus Demonstrated Community Need
Our discussion helped clarify two separate questions that should not be conflated.
The first is whether DYSA would benefit from additional reliable baseball field capacity.
Chris articulated several reasons that it would. DYSA shares fields with other leagues and organizations, competes for scheduling availability, maintains facilities across multiple locations, and would gain operational and maintenance efficiencies from consolidating multiple fields at one location.
The second question is different:
Does Pinewood Elementary or Madison Park have an unmet need for two baseball fields that warrants converting this particular school and neighborhood resource to that use?
The information provided during our discussion did not establish that second proposition.
DYSA’s organizational need for additional dedicated capacity may be legitimate. But organizational need and community benefit are not necessarily the same thing.
That distinction remains fundamental to evaluating the proposal.
III. Scope and Intensity of the Proposed Use
9. Two Fields / Six Days Per Week / Approximately Five Months
Chris stated that DYSA is submitting a proposal for two baseball fields at Pinewood/Madison Central Park.
The Extended Use Agreement provides for use six days per week, and Chris confirmed during our conversation that six-day-per-week use remains contemplated.
I raised that this represents a substantially more intensive use than what I had observed at other DYSA locations. Based on the information I had reviewed, some other DYSA locations are used only a handful of days per week, and no weekends, whereas the Pinewood proposal contemplates organized use six days per week.
I explained that this difference in intensity matters when comparing Pinewood with other DYSA locations and when evaluating potential impacts on the immediately surrounding neighborhood. The relevant comparison is not simply whether another property also contains baseball fields, but how frequently those facilities are used, the scale of the activity, and the characteristics and buffers of the surrounding site.
Chris noted that baseball activity would occur for approximately five months of the year.
I responded that those months substantially overlap with the months when neighborhood children and families are also most likely to be outside and using the park and surrounding outdoor spaces.
Therefore, the fact that the use would not occur year-round does not eliminate the need to understand its impact during the months in which activity would occur.
10. Practices Initially, Followed by Games
We specifically discussed the distinction between practices and games because I explained that games represent a materially different level of activity and potential impact than practices.
Chris suggested that the first year could potentially be negotiated to allow practices only.
I asked what would happen in the second year.
Chris explained that, if the first year went well, the use would then move to games.
This is important because a first-year practice limitation would not necessarily represent the intended long-term use of the property. Based on our conversation, games remain contemplated after the initial practice-only period.
No objective criteria were identified during our discussion for determining whether the first year had “gone well,” how neighborhood impacts would be evaluated, or who would make that determination.
11. Why Two Fields Rather Than One?
I repeatedly asked why the proposal requires two fields rather than one.
Chris identified three principal advantages: efficiency, ease of maintenance, and cost savings.
I specifically asked Chris to clarify what he meant by cost savings.
He explained that the savings relate to tending and maintaining the fields. Servicing two fields at one location is more efficient than traveling to separate locations to service individual fields.
I understand the operational logic of that explanation. Consolidating multiple fields at one site would make DYSA’s operations and maintenance more efficient.
However, that explanation establishes why two fields at one location are advantageous to DYSA. It does not establish why Pinewood or Madison Park needs two fields.
I stated during our discussion that the numbers provided thus far had not substantiated the need for even one field, much less two.
Chris did not state that DYSA would categorically refuse to consider one field. Rather, he explained why DYSA believes having multiple fields at a single location is preferable.
12. Future Expansion and Need for Written Protection
I specifically asked Chris how residents could know that a two-field proposal would not later expand. This did not mean that I was aligned with two, as no data has been provided to even substantiate one. Nevertheless, I raised the separate question of how residents could be assured that whatever scope was ultimately approved would not later be expanded through a renewal.
Chris stated that DYSA was “only submitting that” and gave me his word that DYSA would not subsequently return seeking additional expansion.
I responded that his word alone would not be sufficient protection if discussions ever progressed to that point. Given the permanence and significance of the proposed change, any limitation on future expansion would need to be memorialized in writing rather than depend upon an assurance from an individual or current organizational leadership.
No written restriction preventing future expansion was identified during our discussion.
13. Site Configuration, Trees and Proximity to Homes
We discussed why the fields are proposed for the portion of the property closer to surrounding residences rather than the opposite side.
Chris explained that placing the fields on the left side of the property would require removing trees.
I responded that this raised the broader question of why the property needed to accommodate two fields. One practice field on the left side with only practices would be a different impact.
Preserving existing trees is a legitimate consideration. At the same time, if accommodating two fields while preserving those trees requires placing organized athletic activity closer to existing homes, that tradeoff is relevant to the proposed scale and suitability of the site.
No site-suitability analysis addressing that tradeoff was identified during our discussion.
IV. Field Capacity, Alternatives and Site Selection
14. Existing DYSA Access — Approximately 94 Diamonds
We discussed DYSA’s existing access to baseball/softball diamonds.
Based on my research, DYSA currently has access to approximately 94 diamonds across its various locations. Chris asked where that data was obtained. I explained that I went to their website and on the page where it lists their site locations, I looked up each independently and counted the diamonds.
Chris explained that DYSA does not have exclusive or unrestricted control over all of these diamonds and must compete with other leagues and organizations for field availability.
That is an important distinction and should be acknowledged.
It also helps clarify the nature of DYSA’s capacity issue: the challenge is not simply the existence of baseball diamonds, but obtaining sufficiently reliable access to fields that DYSA can schedule and use.
15. Fifteen Existing Diamonds Within Five Miles
I specifically raised the proximity of existing diamonds because distance had been discussed as part of DYSA’s field-access challenge.
I noted that 15 existing baseball diamonds at DYSA-used locations are within approximately five miles of Madison Park.
Chris agreed with the figure of 15 diamonds within five miles.
His response was that DYSA must compete with other leagues or organizations for use of those fields.
Accordingly, the issue does not appear to be simply an absence of baseball diamonds near Madison Park. Rather, DYSA is seeking greater or more reliable access to field capacity.
That distinction is relevant when determining whether the Pinewood proposal addresses an unmet recreational need within Madison Park or DYSA’s broader organizational field-capacity needs.
16. Parks & Recreation Availability and Timing
Chris stated that he had personally spoken with Mecklenburg County Parks & Recreation regarding field availability.
He said Parks & Recreation leadership had told him that suitable additional space was not available.
Chris also explained that DYSA had been late pursuing Parks & Recreation opportunities because the organization had been relying on the CMS arrangements. As a result, DYSA currently has access to only a limited number of diamonds through Parks & Recreation and must share available fields with other organizations.
I raised that there appear to be other parks with existing or potentially available field space.
Chris reiterated that Parks & Recreation leadership disagreed that suitable additional space was available.
No written Parks & Recreation analysis, site inventory, or alternatives analysis was provided during our discussion documenting which locations had been evaluated, the criteria used, or why particular alternatives were rejected. I noted that all other multi-field sites are significantly different than Madison Central Park. This site is 53% smaller than the average DYSA multi-field site. All multi-field locations I reviewed generally have substantially greater buffers from residences and/or are located in commercial areas, along major roads, or within established athletic complexes.
17. Language Academy and Other Alternatives
We discussed the Language Academy property, which had previously been suggested to DYSA as another potential location.
Chris stated that DYSA would not pursue that location because it would not engage with a private entity for field space.
I raised the location as part of the broader question of what alternatives had been considered before converting Madison Central Park.
More broadly, information is still needed identifying the alternative locations evaluated, the criteria applied to those locations, and the specific reasons alternatives were determined to be unsuitable.
V. Extended Use Agreement and Other Issues Discussed
18. Agreement Duration and Return on Investment
We discussed the duration of the Extended Use Agreement. The policy states one year unless there are special circumstances. The Pinewood agreement is for a period of two years.
Chris explained that organizations making investments in CMS properties want sufficient time to obtain a return on that investment and stated that other agreements can extend for three years or longer.
I noted that I had not identified comparable agreements of that duration among the agreements I had reviewed.
Additional documentation is needed to understand how the term and structure of the Pinewood agreement compare with CMS’s other Extended Use Agreements.
19. Chris Frye’s Signature on the Agreement
I asked Chris Pineno about Chris Frye’s signature on the Pinewood Extended Use Agreement.
Chris Pineno initially stated that Mr. Frye had not signed the agreement.
I responded that he had. Mr. Pineno again stated that he had not. As I began retrieving the agreement on my phone, Mr. Pineno clarified that Mr. Frye was a secondary signatory.
I explained why the signature had raised a question for me: Chris Frye is a partner at Barringer Construction, which performs construction work including athletic facilities.
Mr. Pineno responded that Mr. Frye’s signature did not have particular significance and that he was simply a DYSA board member.
I stated that I had not seen Frye’s signature on the other comparable agreements I had reviewed. Mr. Pineno responded that Mr. Frye had signed other agreements.
I am seeking comparable agreements through public records in order to independently understand whether and how frequently he has served as a signatory.
No conclusion is being drawn here regarding the significance of Mr. Frye’s signature. This section records the question raised during our discussion, Mr. Pineno response, and the additional information being sought to verify it.
20. Maintenance, Restrooms and Other Items Discussed
Chris discussed items DYSA could provide as part of the arrangement, including mowing, weeding, trash pickup, and restrooms.
I responded that I believed this was “putting the cart ahead of the horse.”
Before discussing ancillary maintenance or amenities, the underlying questions first need to be answered: whether the project is needed by this community, whether its proposed scale is justified, whether this is the appropriate site, and what impacts the project would have.
These items may have value, but they do not resolve those threshold questions.
VI. Information Still Outstanding
The discussion provided useful information about DYSA’s needs and reasoning. However, by the conclusion of our meeting, the following information had not been identified or provided:
Current data establishing current enrollment among Pinewood Elementary students;
Verified current DYSA participation among children residing within the actual Madison Park neighborhood boundary;
Data demonstrating why Madison Park requires two baseball fields;
Data demonstrating why one field would be insufficient;
A traffic study;
A parking study;
A noise study;
A stormwater study;
A wildlife/environmental study;
A comparison of the anticipated frequency and intensity of use at Pinewood with DYSA’s other locations, including the number of days per week those locations are regularly used;
An analysis of reported traffic and parking issues at comparable DYSA locations and whether similar impacts could reasonably occur at Pinewood;
A documented analysis of alternative locations;
Comparable documentation establishing how the duration, scope, investment, construction, and signatory structure of this agreement compare with other CMS Extended Use Agreements.
VII. Central Issue Remaining
I appreciated Chris’s willingness to meet and speak directly about DYSA’s needs and reasoning. The conversation helped clarify why additional dedicated field capacity would be valuable to DYSA.
DYSA currently shares many fields with other organizations and competes for scheduling availability. Greater control over field access would help address those challenges. Consolidating multiple fields at one location would also create maintenance, operational, and cost efficiencies for DYSA.
Those are legitimate organizational considerations, and this summary is not intended to discount them.
However, they are distinct from the question I raised throughout our discussion:
What demonstrates that this particular project, at this particular scale, at this particular location, benefits Pinewood Elementary and Madison Park?
Chris stated that current Pinewood participation in DYSA is “close to zero” and described overcoming barriers to Pinewood participation as a “tough nut to crack.” He explained that the project was really for Madison Park and referenced approximately 20–30 children within Madison Park. However, the underlying data has not been provided to establish how many current DYSA participants actually reside within the neighborhood boundary.
When I asked why two fields were necessary, the reasons Chris provided—efficiency, maintenance, and related cost savings—explained why two fields at one location would benefit DYSA operationally. They did not establish why the immediate community needs two fields.
Similarly, our discussion established that DYSA’s difficulty with existing fields involves sharing and competing with other organizations for access. Chris agreed that 15 diamonds at DYSA-used locations exist within approximately five miles, but explained that DYSA competes for use of those fields.
These explanations help define the problem DYSA is attempting to solve. They do not yet establish that converting Madison Central Park is the appropriate solution for Pinewood and Madison Park.
This distinction is particularly important because the proposal does not simply add a recreational opportunity without changing the existing resource. It would convert flexible-use school and neighborhood space into substantially more specialized organized athletic use for six days per week during approximately five months of the year, with practices initially and games contemplated thereafter.
I also raised that the proposed six-day-per-week use is substantially more intensive than the use I identified at some other DYSA locations, which are used only a handful of days per week. In addition, I raised existing public reporting describing traffic and parking problems associated with activity at other locations, including reporting containing comments attributed to DYSA regarding those challenges. Yet no traffic or parking study has been performed for Pinewood.
Residents are not asking that Madison Central Park never change.
The concern I expressed to Chris is that any significant change to this longstanding school and neighborhood resource should be demonstrated to maintain or improve the community that already surrounds and uses it.
That requires understanding what the community gains, what it gives up, and what impacts accompany the change.
At present, no requested impact studies have been completed; current Pinewood participation is reportedly “close to zero”; Madison Park-specific demand has not been substantiated with underlying data; the need for two fields rather than one has not been demonstrated through community participation data; the proposed intensity has not been evaluated against potential neighborhood impacts; a documented alternatives analysis has not been provided.
Substantial information has been provided explaining DYSA’s need for additional and more reliable field capacity.
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.
I explained to Chris that, based on the reasons he had provided throughout our discussion and site visit, I 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. I told him that, from my 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