Patrick Dwyer's sweeping indictment of historic districts {"Historic Districts: Good for Homeowners, Yes, but Bad for Corner Grocers," Close to Home, June 21} needs some clarification. The Kalorama Triangle Historic District has, it seems, become a scapegoat for Dwyer's frustrations in doing business in Washington.

Dwyer has misguided readers 1) into thinking that all business people are opposed to historic districts; 2) about the boundaries of the Kalorama Triangle Historic District; 3) that owners in historic districts can do nothing with their property; and 4) regarding real estate taxes in historic districts.

On July 30, 1986, at the Historic Preservation Review Board's hearing on the Kalorama Triangle Historic District, Dwyer was the only property owner in the business district portion of the Tri-angle who appeared to oppose our application. In fact, he was the only per-son within the entire proposed district who voiced any opposition at that hearing.

After the record closed on the application in mid-September, we reviewed the file and discovered that the majority of the businesses in the proposed historic district actually supported or were neutral on the preservation issue. Twenty-three businesses signed petitions or submitted letters supporting the historic district. Twelve businesses opposed it, and 25 took no position.

Dwyer has further confused readers with examples of businesses outside the boundaries of the Kalorama Triangle Historic District. The former Ben Franklin five-and-dime, which served our neighborhood, was located on 18th Street; the Gartenhaus Building ison Adams Mill Road. Both of theselocations are outside the historic dis-trict.

To set the record straight, as the name implies, it is a triangle, bounded by Columbia Road, Calvert Street, Rock Creek Park and Connecticut Avenue. Historic districts have well-defined boundaries and reflect an architectural completeness. The Kalorama Triangle Historic District's boundaries are well-defined. To have excluded some properties while including others, as Dwyer wanted, would have marred the integrity of a major boundary.

The nine one-story-high buildings on Columbia Road, of which Dwyer's property is one, were designed by local architect Frederic Pyle and built in 1931 and 1932 to provide services to their neighbors in the surrounding apartment buildings, such as 1841 Columbia Road (1929), the Woodley at 1851 Columbia Road (1903) and 1803 Biltmore Street (1926). The mixed residential and commercial use of Columbia Road was successfully integrated from the very conception of these buildings. There is no reason to separate them some 60 years later.

Next, Dwyer misleads the readers into thinking that property owners can do nothing in historic districts when he states "I've got a building worth very little sitting on land I can't do anything with because I'm in the Kalorama Triangle Historic District." Not so. Dwyer may do what the zoning permits. The design review by the Historic Preservation Review Board merely ensures overall compatibility of design. There are several good examples of additions and new construction in the Capitol Hill and Dupont Circle Historic Districts.

Last, Dwyer should know that the Kalorama Citizens Association provided information to property owners about appealing tax assessments. What he does not understand, or chooses to ignore, is that there is no advantage to an overpriced house or commercial property unless you plan to sell. Furthermore, commercial and residential property assessments in the area have been increasing over a number of years. With or without historic designation, market forces have forced prices up in Adams Morgan; by comparison, similar properties in the Capitol Hill Historic District are assessed for lower amounts.

Many of us have been here much longer than Dwyer and will still be here for years to come -- perhaps even after Dwyer moves his business to Maryland, where he resides. -- Marilou M. Righini is president of the Kalorama Citizens Association.