Threat of legal action or no, members of the Westport Historical Commission won’t continue discussion on a controversial Westport Point construction project a month after they dismissed it, despite the homeowner’s request and despite the litigation that could result.

In February, commission members unanimously dismissed an application for a certificate of appropriateness filed by Robert Branca, the owner of a home at 2015 Main Road.

The dismissial opens the door for Branca to re-file a new application, appeal the town’s decision to court, or both.

Branca had been directed to seek the certificate months after he started work on a large retaining wall/pool without proper sign-offs from the commission. Though he had building permits in place, they were apparently issued without him seeking certificates of either appropriateness, non-applicability or hardship from the commission, one of which is required of construction projects in the district.

The February dismissal came after months of back and forth over stop work orders, a difference of opinion over the commission’s role and responsibilities, and debate over the letter of the law and how it applies in this case. Following February’s meeting, Branca said, he has started reworking his plan, to build a retaining wall and utility room servicing the pool, to make it more palatable to neighbors.

He also asked several weeks ago that the board reconsider its decision to dismiss his application for the certificate.

Last Monday, board chairman Rud Lawrence asked Branca why he’d rather continue, rather than start anew:

“A reconsideration sort of rewinds everything back to prior to the last hearing, in layman’s terms, so that we can continue with the process ... without prejudicing anybody,” Branca said.

Branca added that in the month since the dismissal, he has been working on a revised plan for the structure. Most significantly, he said, under the current plan it is now approximately 18 inches shorter than under the previous plan.

Board members were not impressed:

“I don’t think 18 inches is what any of us believe is acceptable up here,” Lawrence said.

“The only reason to reverse our decision is to prevent Mr. Branca from suing so that he can build exactly what he wants to build,” board member Garrett Stuck added.

Attorney Bob Feingold, who represents several neibhbors, said he agrees.

Reconsidering “is a backdoor way of having you reverse your denial,” he said. “You denied 5-0. By reconsidering entirely you’re being required, if you agree to the motion ... you are effectively reversing your denial 5-0 for no reason.”

As for the 18 inches, he said, it “doesn’t come close. Doesn’t come close. So what’s the point of reversing the denial? I’m very skeptical and dubious.”

Minutes later, the board voted unanimously to reject Branca’s request.