DAYTON – More than 26 residents sat – or stood when they ran out of chairs – in the small space for audience members at Dayton City Council Chambers March 25, at a Dayton Historic Preservation Commission meeting that lasted late into the evening.

For more than three hours, members of the commission, along with city planning director Karen Scharer, listened and responded to a stream of negative public comments regarding Dayton’s two locally registered residential historic districts – Washington Street and South Side.

The meeting ended with an agreement to table any further work on design guidelines for the historic districts, the intended purpose of the meeting. At the commission’s next meeting, later this month, they will develop recommendations to city council regarding changes that ought to be made to the city code relative to concerns expressed at Wednesday’s meeting, according to Scharer.

One of the primary concerns is that owners of homes within the two districts must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the commission before the city will issue a building permit for any work.

Tension was high, and many homeowners demanded their homes be removed from the districts and even that the districts themselves be dissolved. “I have lost faith in this commission,” said South First Street homeowner Shane Loper, who referred to the restrictions of maintaining a home in the South Side Historic District as a “mandatory, life-long sentence.”

Commission member Ginny Butler was concerned about this request, questioning why homeowners would want to opt-out. She and Scharer spent quite some time detailing the history of the districts and clarifying any confusion about the vote that created them.

Many present had heard, they said, that absentee ballots had been counted as “yes” votes, but Scharer assured them that 80 ballots were mailed from the county elections office in 2008. Of those returned – nine for the Washington Street district and 55 for the South Side district – a majority voted “yes.” Absentee ballots were not counted as “yes” votes, she said.

After the matter of the vote was dealt with, confusion and conflicting statements in the language that created and maintain the districts were of chief concern. Loper and at least a dozen other homeowners expressed displeasure that the city offered no “opt-out” clause. Some stated that the option was in an earlier ordinance but was subsequently, and without public input, removed.

“Three years ago, my dad and I bought our house,” said Jennifer Wagner, who lives on East Spring Street. “I still see my house how I want it to be, but I just can’t afford it. If I’d known about this trouble within the districts and the proposed restrictions or guidelines for construction and renovation in the districts, I wouldn’t have bought it.”

Scharer agreed that the conflict regarding whether participation is voluntary or mandatory needs to be resolved.

Other homeowners said similar things. They worried about the restrictions lowering the value of their homes rather than maintaining or increasing it, as described in the commission’s proposed guidelines document.

“Basically I have no use for this committee,” said Jeff Turner, who owns a home on East Tremont Street. “I don’t think a person has a right to tell another what to do with that person’s property. I think the option to opt-out needs to be put back in.”

Last week’s meeting was one among many scheduled for this year as the city works to revamp its comprehensive plan. The first meeting, a public hearing to adopt the two districts as subareas and also adopt “historic district design guidelines,” took place in February. A second meeting, mid-March, provided a workshop environment for the commission to continue discussing these guidelines.

More information on the districts, proposed design guidelines, maps of the affected neighborhoods and history of the residential historical districts is on the city’s website, at daytonwa.com.