Your area Not set — showing everywhere
Meeting report · Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes-only
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Zoning Board of Adjustment — April 21, 2026

A public hearing attracted seven speakers on a single variance case and the board added an off-agenda review of 2024 minutes, but the board remained unified in its decision.

Date Tuesday, April 21, 2026 Public comments 7 Decisions 2 Lively

Questions about this meeting? ⁠Just ask.

Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.

Summary AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.

At its April 21 meeting, the Andover Zoning Board of Adjustment added an unlisted item to the agenda: review of reconstructed 2024 minutes for a Vertex Communications cell tower special exception. The Land Use office brought the records forward after building permits were submitted. The board accepted them for review by consensus and scheduled further discussion for the next meeting.

No prior notice was given that this 2024 matter would be taken up, so residents had no opportunity to examine the original lease condition or prepare comments. The meeting also held the scheduled public hearing on Mary Jurta's request for three variances to subdivide the 2.93-acre lot at 91 Maple Street. After seven residents spoke about septic suitability, depth-to-width ratios, and preservation of rural zoning character, the board found no qualifying hardship and rejected the application unanimously.

Apr 21, 2026 7 public comments 2 decisions Lively
Notable statements Drag to browse

“With only three members present, approval requires unanimous vote; applicant may postpone for full board.”

— Warzocha · Opening of Jurta hearing 00:00

“Application lacks demonstrated hardship and does not meet the five-point variance test.”

— Warzocha · Deliberation after closing hearing 00:00

“Pre-existing smaller lots cannot set precedent because they predate current zoning ordinance.”

— Newcomb · Deliberation on subdivision 00:00
This meeting — choose a section

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Warzocha, Jurta, Newcomb, Dickinson, Wells, Cassidy, Rand, Mazur
What was discussed

Public hearing on variances to subdivide 2.93-acre lot at 91 Maple St. into 2.08- and 0.85-acre parcels.

What happened

Public hearing closed at 7:34 PM. Board found no qualifying hardship and that proposal failed variance criteria and spirit of ordinance. Dickinson moved to reject; Newcomb seconded; unanimous approval.

Speakers: Vigenault, Warzocha
What was discussed

Land Use office presented reconstructed minutes from 2024 special exception for cell towers.

What happened

Board accepted the reconstructed minutes for review but deferred discussion.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Mary Jurta lot subdivision variance request

Seven residents spoke on precedent for new subdivisions in a rural zone, buildability, septic suitability, and depth-to-width compliance; the applicant sought three variances plus shoreland review to create a 0.85-acre parcel.
Board position: Closed the hearing and rejected the application after finding no qualifying hardship and failure to satisfy the five variance criteria or ordinance spirit.
medium concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
7
Total speakers
6
Addressed
1
Partial
0
Not addressed
Mary Jurta
Addressed
Jurta requested variances to subdivide her 2.93-acre lot at 91 Maple St. into two parcels of 2.08 and 0.85 acres, citing family history, surveyor recommendations, and examples of other non-conforming lots nearby. She confirmed the smaller lot would be buildable after removing the cottage and planned to sell the larger parcel while retaining the smaller one. Key concern
Approval of variances for lot size, road frontage, and depth-to-width ratio to allow subdivision
Board response
Asked multiple questions about buildability, septic/well, right-of-way, and hardship; reviewed the five variance criteria and rejected the application
Board conducted full hearing, asked clarifying questions, and rendered a formal decision rejecting the application
Ken Wells
Addressed
Reviewed the proposed map and pointed out that the smaller parcel appeared to violate the 4-to-1 depth-to-width ratio requirement. Key concern
Additional variance needed for depth-to-width ratio
Board response
Board reviewed the map and agreed an additional variance would be required
Board acknowledged the issue during discussion and incorporated it into the final variance review
Allen Cassidy
Addressed
Asked whether a house design was available for the proposed smaller lot. Key concern
Details on proposed building on the new lot
Board response
Jurta provided a map showing the proposed house location
Jurta responded directly with a map; board did not pursue further
Gary Cassidy
Partial
Questioned whether the property had been perk tested given visible water pooling on the site. Key concern
Soil/percolation suitability for septic on the new lot
Board response
Jurta stated it had not been tested but did not believe it would be an issue
Jurta answered; board noted the issue but did not require testing before rendering decision
Lee Wells
Addressed
Argued that past non-conforming lots should not set precedent for new subdivisions and emphasized preserving the rural character of the zone. Key concern
Precedent and consistency with current zoning intent
Board response
Warzocha and Newcomb agreed that pre-ordinance lots do not establish precedent for new approvals
Board explicitly referenced and supported this point in their variance analysis
Erin Mazur
Addressed
Asked whether Jurta could subdivide one of her other lots instead. Key concern
Alternative locations for subdivision
Board response
Jurta replied that the other lot is no longer owned by her
Jurta provided a direct factual response; board did not pursue further
Donna Duclos
Addressed
Confirmed that Jurta had attended a non-binding Planning Board consultation where members indicated variances would be required first. Key concern
Status of prior Planning Board review
Board response
Warzocha noted the information and proceeded with the ZBA hearing
Board accepted the clarification and continued the hearing

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
00:00
Reject Mary Jurta subdivision variance application
Dickinson moved to reject; Newcomb seconded; all three members in favor.
Unanimous approval
00:00
Add review of reconstructed 2024 minutes to agenda
Board agreed to add item after Rand noted availability.
Consensus

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

off-agenda addition of Vertex minutes review
Andover ZBA added review of reconstructed 2024 Vertex cell tower minutes to the April 21 agenda during the meeting itself. No prior public notice. Residents had no chance to prepare or attend for this item. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/andover/zoning-board/2026-04-21/ #MeetingWatch #AndoverNH
292/280 chars
variance rejection after community input
At the April 21 ZBA meeting, the board rejected Mary Jurta's request for three variances to subdivide 91 Maple St. Unanimous vote found no qualifying hardship and failure to meet ordinance criteria after seven residents raised... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/andover/zoning-board/2026-04-21/ #MeetingWatch #AndoverNH
315/280 chars
limited board presence and immediate decision
ZBA Chair Warzocha noted only three members were present April 21, requiring unanimous votes. Jurta's subdivision application was rejected on the spot; she was told she can appeal to the state Housing Review Board. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/andover/zoning-board/2026-04-21/ #MeetingWatch #AndoverNH
300/280 chars

X thread

1
Andover ZBA meeting April 21 took up reconstructed 2024 Vertex Communications cell tower minutes without listing the item on the public agenda. The Land Use office presented them after permits were submitted; the board added the review by consensus... #MeetingWatch #AndoverNH
276/280
2
This matters because the 2024 special exception was conditioned on proof of a Verizon lease. Residents received no advance notice that 2024 records would be reconstructed and discussed, so no one could review the original conditions or submit comments.
252/280
3
The same meeting closed the public hearing on the Jurta subdivision variances at 91 Maple St. and rejected the application unanimously. Seven residents had spoken on buildability, NHDES compliance, and precedent for new non-conforming lots in the rural... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/andover/zoning-board/2026-04-21/
279/280

Facebook — long form

At its April 21 meeting, the Andover Zoning Board of Adjustment added an unlisted item to the agenda: review of reconstructed 2024 minutes for a Vertex Communications cell tower special exception. The Land Use office brought the records forward after building permits were submitted. The board accepted them for review by consensus and scheduled further discussion for the next meeting.

No prior notice was given that this 2024 matter would be taken up, so residents had no opportunity to examine the original lease condition or prepare comments. The meeting also held the scheduled public hearing on Mary Jurta's request for three variances to subdivide the 2.93-acre lot at 91 Maple Street. After seven residents spoke about septic suitability, depth-to-width ratios, and preservation of rural zoning character, the board found no qualifying hardship and rejected the application unanimously. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/andover/zoning-board/2026-04-21/ #MeetingWatch #AndoverNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Review reconstructed 2024 Vertex minutes
Assigned: Board · Due: next meeting

Member ⁠positions

1 issues · 0 explicit · 2 inferred
Present
Mary Jurta variance request for lot subdivision YES ~
Present
Mary Jurta variance request for lot subdivision YES
Absent

Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position. UNCLEAR means the vote was split but the record did not name how this member voted — it is not a “yes.”

Accountability ⁠flags

Documented procedural gaps. Each item links to its source.

Agenda items not discussed

Topics discussed — not on agenda

Transcript vs. official minutes

Support coverage

Creating this report cost ⁠real money.

MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Andover.

Report composed by grok-4.3, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-21.