The fate of two, possibly three, parcels of publicly-owned vacant land situated in the northwest section of Oxford Village is being debated.

Last week, council voted 5-0 to set aside proposals to market and sell the village’s Dayton St. property and seek bids to have a professional appraisal done on one parcel to determine whether or not voter-approval is required to sell it.

In the November 2016 election, village residents voted 805 to 738 to authorize the municipality to sell two odd-shaped parcels totalling 2.1 acres. They are located off Dayton St., south of Maple St., west of Pleasant St. and north of Lafayette St. They border the Polly Ann Trail.

They’re both zoned for single-family residential development.

According to village Manager Joe Young, a third 0.589-acre parcel, also zoned for single-family use, was supposed to be on the ballot as well, but didn’t make it.

Councilman Erik Dolan inquired as to why it was omitted.

“It was an oversight at the time,” Young replied.

The manager explained that when council passed a motion authorizing the ballot question, the parcel identification number for the 0.589-acre property was not included.

Council is planning to have it appraised to determine whether or not its value is such that voter-approval is necessary.

Voter-approval is required by the village charter “to sell any property of value in excess of five dollars per capita, according to the last preceding U.S. Census.”

Based on the 2010 Census, which counted 3,436 residents in the village, any property worth more than $17,180 requires a vote of the people to sell it.

Councilwoman Maureen Helmuth admitted to having an “obvious extreme bias against selling the (Dayton St.) property” because she lives across from it.

She said many people in her neighborhood use the vacant village land for recreational purposes because there are no parks or school playgrounds in that area. People walk their dogs on the property and children play there, according to Helmuth.

“There’s nothing else in the northwest section,” Helmuth said. “I would hate to see the whole piece sold and the kids have no place to play.”

Dolan said he believes it’s better for the village to sell the property and “reinvest” those funds in its police and public works departments.

Village President Sue Bossardet expressed her concern about someone getting injured on the property, then suing the municipality.

“We insure all of our properties,” said Helmuth, who added the village faces the same potential liability right now with its public parks and public parking lots.

Bossardet noted the village parks are maintained whereas the Dayton St. parcels are “untamed land.”

The village has owned all three parcels since 1995. They were donated to the village by the Oxford Housing Corporation with “the hope” they could be used for “community activities or development,” according to an Oct. 28, 1994 letter from the donor.

A public hearing regarding this land was held in March 2005 and the majority of residents in attendance supported either developing it as a park for neighborhood children or preserving it as open space.

If housing is ever built on the property, the residents who spoke at the hearing favored single family homes and staunchly opposed any type of multiple family development.