Historic Preservation Board members on Aug. 26 continued consideration of a certificate-of-appropriateness application for 195 Dyer Road after debate over whether the proposed additions would overwhelm the original 1937 contributing residence. Attorney Jack Rice, on behalf of owners Raymond and Gloria Clark, and architect Russell Resicki presented revisions the team said addressed earlier board concerns, including moving the proposed second story further behind the existing roof ridge and lowering ridge heights. Staff recommended approval with conditions but reiterated continuing concerns about massing and integrity.

The project would raise the house's finished-floor elevation to meet floodplain requirements, remove a non‑historic rear addition, and add a new second story set back from the historic ridge. Resicki said the finished floor would be lifted roughly 18 inches to meet the one-foot-above-base-flood requirement for the site. He said the revised second story begins about 2 feet 8 inches behind the existing ridge and includes a smaller balcony footprint and adjusted fenestration.

Why it matters: The property is a contributing, vernacular structure in a local historic district; board approval would permit work that permanently changes the house's scale and visibility from the street. Staff and several board members cited Secretary of the Interior standards and the city's Section 94‑49 compatibility criteria when assessing whether the new work would be reversible and subordinate to the historic building.

Details of the proposal and discussion: Jack Rice told the board the team had removed a circular driveway, relocated the second-story mass further north, reduced balcony sizes and matched railing details. Resicki showed streetscape comparisons and a massing study intended to demonstrate the addition's relation to nearby two‑story houses. Staff planner Anthony Mendez said the applicant had implemented many board comments from a June hearing but that staff still had concerns about overall bulk and recommended seven conditions to ensure the design remained consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards.

Board members voiced repeated concerns that the second-story addition still “consumed” the primary structure and risked creating an irreversible alteration to the historic house. Several members specifically cited standards 9 and 10 in the city's historic-preservation code — which address size, scale, roof form and integrity — and said the revised drawings were an improvement but not sufficient. Staff noted neighbor correspondence opposing the project — emails from residents at 201, 305 and 219 Dyer Road are included in the staff packet — raising issues about height, the two‑story accessory structure and site changes.

The board action: After discussion, a motion to continue the case to the Sept. 23 Historic Preservation Board meeting carried. The continuation gives the applicant time to respond to the remaining staff conditions and to return with any additional massing, fenestration or materials information the board requests.

Next steps: The applicant will return Sept. 23 with revised drawings and any additional documentation requested by staff; the board directed staff to keep the existing conditions and correspondence in the record for the continued hearing.