I see where you're coming from but this is the type of branding which will get a glance, nothing more. In the context of a design forum where people are scrutinising it, maybe not - but in practise, i.e. the real world, it won't get a great deal of consideration from passing Joe Public.
I often feel that as designers we tend to assume that everyone gets wrapped up in the narrative and minutiae of a logo in the same way we do, but people (in general!) are herd animals who pay branding little consciousness. You need something bold, and clichés become clichés for a reason.
Sorry Jri, but I have to beg to differ. I definitely wouldn’t go with any sort of stone henge silhouette. That’s just yet another visual cliché. Think about the essence of what this person does. Tell their unique story, not some vague representation of clichéd ideas around stone. That’s up there with ropey black and white cartoons of a man with a paintbrush, you see on the side of thousands of decorators’ vans.
Maybe you've got the wrong idea about what I meant. Those pictures of decorator mascots that you described are usually gross and the opposite of minimal design - but the core idea is fine, they just need visual refinement. Case point; if I want a decorator, I pick the print ad with a giant paintbrush, I pick the social media profile with a paint pot avatar etc...
The reason is that the logo is telling you instantly and exactly what the company does, its cliché status is irrelevant.
Aesthetic appeal is desperately important, but a deep and meaningful logo is useless if it doesn't bring customers through the door. Admittedly, larger scale corporate branding deviates from this massively and things tend to get more abstract at that level - but this is a stone off cuts business and not Nike.
Form follows function.