Architect Chris Moran of Brooks & Flatico presented the HDC with a third round of revisions for 115 Cliff Road, showing site-context studies and lower dormer plates intended to reduce visual massing. Commissioners said the changes did not go far enough.

Commissioners repeatedly singled out oversized flanking gambrels and the structure's overall scale. Ray said the cross gambrels facing the road "create this big box" and recommended dormers instead of crossed gambrels. Abby and Angus said the house remained imposing on the site despite some refinements. Chair (unidentified) reminded the applicant the commission follows a "3-strikes" best-practice: "If material modifications as deemed appropriate by the commission aren't made within 3 meetings, there will be a vote for denial." That procedural warning was unanimously reinforced.

Guest house and garage: Commissioners raised concerns about the guest-house dormers and garage dormer windows being too large and too visible from the road. Angus moved for an Exhibit A that removes the dormers and replaces them with two to four knee-wall windows proportioned as six-over-six sash (with the applicant allowed design prerogative between two and four). That motion passed with recorded ayes.

Process and materials: The board also voted that future revision submissions for the main house and guest house must include staff-prepared minutes documenting prior direction, and the commission reiterated it will enforce the three-hearing material-change practice.

Public comment and counsel: Natalie Kaufman, counsel for the homeowner, argued the team had made substantive changes and filed supplemental minutes to show response to prior comments. A public commenter (Linda) objected strongly to the repeated resubmissions and called the project "overdeveloped," a claim the applicant's counsel disputed at the meeting.

Next steps: The applicant was directed to prepare a set of substantial revisions addressing massing and fenestration and to submit staff minutes with the package. The project will return for another hearing; failure to make material change within the three-hearing window could lead to denial with prejudice.