Dorchester takes its historic properties seriously, from the Clapp houses on Boston Street to the distinctive churches speckled throughout the neighborhood. Unless specifically noted as historic landmarks or parts of historic districts, however, the buildings do not come with established protections and local groups often disagree over their best uses.

At the Greater Ashmont Main Street fall meeting earlier this month, Jeff Gonyeau presented the Development and Historic Preservation Committee’s year-long project to catalogue properties in the Main Street district along Dorchester Avenue.

“This is an attempt to get out in front of some issues in the district,” he said, “particularly in this environment of active development and a lot of changes to buildings, to be able to be pro-active and have a sense, on our own terms, as an organization, of what we would like to see happen – what we would encourage to happen and what we would discourage from happening.”

In the Greater Ashmont Main Street District Property Index, sites are classified by colors and numbers indicating the historic merit of a building and the committee’s suggestion for amounts of preservation or development. If classified as “red” in the index, properties are considered “so architecturally or historically significant to the district and to its character that they must be preserved and maintained.”

They might be noted as historic by the Boston Landmarks Commission, considered for status as a landmark, possess unique architecture or a relationship to an historic person, or whose loss would have a “significant negative impact” on the surrounding area.

Examples cited at the meeting included O’Brien’s Market at Ashmont, the Peabody Square Apartments, St. Mark’s Church, and the Carruth Building.

Both “yellow” and “green” properties would be considered for redevelopment by the Main Street group if “excellent projects are proposed.” The former denotes buildings of historical and architectural interest that are “preferably maintained and preserved,” while the latter includes vacant lots or properties with no such interest.

“This isn’t saying every vacant lot should be developed,” Gonyeau said, “but that’s again a green light to encourage development on these sites.”

Once the buildings’ values are assessed, the index also includes subcategories for levels of maintenance and preservation that the group would require or the level of redevelopment that they could support. In broad strokes, “red” parcels include Level 1 recommendations for bringing the building into landmark status or making modifications to the site to better reflect the building’s significance.

Level 2 suggestions might require further research into the site’s history, suggest rehabilitation, or support some kind of multi-story, mixed use development. Level 3 encourages redevelopment, whether that be a new structure on an empty lot, a proposed project, or supporting a development already in progress.

Buildings can shift between categories as the committee digs into their history, Gonyeau said. The former ODWIN Learning Center building at 1943 Dorchester Ave. was initially classified as “yellow (2)” It was built sometime around 1850 or 1860, the group first believed, but on looking into it, Gonyeau said, “We could never figure out when it was built, or much about its original origin, but it had been so heavily altered over the years as a funeral home and then as the ODWIN site that it didn’t really have any of its architectural character or value left.”

So they designated it as a “green (1)” site instead, deciding to support the multi-story, mixed-use redevelopment already under way on the property.

That parcel is a “good example of the flexibility that [the index] is able to have,” Gonyeau said. He told meeting attendees that the index is still in draft form and the committee is reviewing categorizations. They hope to note every parcel in the Main Street district, he added, “so if something were to be proposed for the site, we have a response articulated.”