For months, Jim Roiter’s “Belvedere at Thames Street” development proposal has remained in limbo. First, when the Bristol Historic District Commission’s July 12 decision to approve his plan to construct a mixed-use, residential and commercial building in Bristol’s historic downtown district was contested by appellants, and now with a similar argument filed against the Bristol Planning Board’s approval of the project.

The Bristol Zoning Board of Appeal already voted unanimously to send the historic district commission’s decision back down for reconsideration; Mr. Roiter, appellants and concerned community members gathered once again on Tuesday night, Nov. 27, to see if the Planning Board’s decision would suffer the same fate.

After having several weeks to digest the testimonies made by both sides in an initial hearing held on Oct. 30, the Zoning Board appeared to yet again be in collective agreement in their preliminary decision — only this time, it was not in favor of the appellants.

During the special meeting Tuesday night, board members meticulously broke down each allegation outlined in the lengthy appeal for discussion, beginning with numerous claims of prejudicial procedural error. Going down the list of accusations that involved the repercussions suffered by hosting the joint hearings, the allegedly biased recommendations for recusal and the failure to submit proper notice of the combined meetings, board members struggled to find evidence from the record that clearly supported those arguments.

The only item under that category that sparked any real debate among board members was one involving Town Solicitor Andy Teitz’s decision to draft two options for the Planning Board to consider during their July 12 meeting: one to adopt a flat-roof plan, as they had instructed him to do, and one for a peaked-roof plan, which Planning Board members had narrowly denied in a straw vote during the June 21 hearing.

“I don’t think anyone feels comfortable on this board with two decisions,” said member Tony Brum.

Whether that amounted to prejudicial procedural error, however, was divisive. To member Charlie Burke, regardless as to whether their vote was official or not, the Planning Board’s preference at the end of the June 21 meeting was made clear.

“I don’t know how he had the authority to do that, because the Planning Board, based on the vote, didn’t ask him to do it,” he argued.

As Chairman Bruce Kogan saw it, however, the fact that the voting wasn’t official meant there was still an opportunity for one or more members to be swayed by the evidence presented by the time a formal decision was rendered on July 12.

“I’m not sure why he felt it was wise to have alternative decisions, but his preparing alternative decisions is not what caused the Planning Board to change its vote,” he reasoned.

Though Mr. Burke would be the only one to vote in favor of the appellants’ argument, moving forward, all board members continued to be in sync with their opinions. Setting aside their own individual feelings about whether they agreed with the Planning Board’s actual decision or not, each member had difficulty justifying the appellants’ claims that it was derived from unsupported findings and clear errors of fact and law.

While the appeal outlined numerous accounts of how they felt the Planning Board ignored evidence that suggested Mr. Roiter’s proposal was in opposition with the town’s Comprehensive Plan in respect to its mass, density and height, the Zoning Board could not come up with concrete proof to support those allegations. In their view, both sides were given ample opportunity to argue their points throughout the hearings, and the Planning Board’s decision to ultimately agree with the applicant’s testimony did not constitute a clear error in law.

“They had the evidence, they heard the public and they made their decision,” said member Donald Kern.

Although the board was seemingly in agreement with overall denying the appeal against the Planning Board, Town Solicitor Mark Hadden recommended reconvening at a later date in order for him to draft a formal, comprehensive decision for members to review and base their final vote on.

The board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to their regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, Dec. 3, at 7 p.m.