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 — June 16, 2026

The meeting featured spirited debate regarding legal procedures and included significant off-agenda decisions regarding board staffing.

Date Tuesday, June 16, 2026 Public comments 4 Decisions 6 Lively

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01

Zoning Board Staffing Expansion

Request for 2 full-time members and 1 alternate Affected: All Andover residents and taxpayers
See more
What was discussed

The board discussed the need to increase the number of members to ensure full coverage of positions and reliable meeting attendance.

What happened

The board passed a unanimous motion for the Land Use Office to draft a letter to the Select Board requesting the additional positions.

What's next

The Land Use Office is tasked with drafting the formal request letter.

other high impact

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of Special Exception for 25 Bradley Point Ln (Tax Map 13 Lot 290-137).
Approval is conditional upon the applicant obtaining all appropriate NHDES permits prior to construction.
Approved (All in favor, none opposed)
00:00
Granting of Motion for Rehearing for 91 Maple Street (Tax Map 17, Lot 80, Sub-lot 346).
Rehearing is subject to the applicant refiling the application with any new information for consideration.
Approved (All in favor, none opposed)
00:00
Motion to request Select Board to appoint more ZBA members.
Requesting 2 full-time members and 1 alternate.
Approved (All in favor, none opposed)
00:00
Approval of March 17th Minutes.
Minutes approved as written.
Approved (All in favor, none opposed)
00:00
Approval of April 21st Minutes.
Minutes approved as written.
Approved (Dickinson, Newcomb, Warzocha in favor; Guptill recused)
00:00
Approval of May 19th Minutes.
Minutes approved as written.
Approved (Dickinson, Newcomb, Guptill in favor; Warzocha recused)
00:00

Topics ⁠discussed

Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
00:00 Special Exception: 25 Bradley Point Ln

Request to demolish an existing seasonal home and build a new, larger structure (1,400 sq ft) set further back from the lake.

Speakers: Jim Diven, Jon Warzocha, Jeff Dickinson, Mary Jurta, Jennifer John, Donna Duclos, Andrew Guptill, Jeff Newcomb
See more
What was discussed

The applicant, Jim Diven, proposed replacing a 1965 structure that sits only 5 feet from the lake with a new home 20 feet from the shoreline. Discussion focused on the increase in square footage (from 978 to 1,400), the impact of moving from piers to a full foundation, and potential environmental impacts on the lake and shoreline trees. The board reviewed whether the use would remain a seasonal family home and if septic/well facilities were adequate.

What happened

The Board approved the special exception with a condition that all necessary NHDES permits must be obtained prior to construction.

00:00 Motion for Rehearing: 91 Maple Street

Discussion regarding an appeal by Mary Jurta to rehear a previously denied variance application.

Speakers: Jon Warzocha, Mary Jurta, Jeff Dickinson, Andrew Guptill, Jeff Newcomb
See more
What was discussed

Mary Jurta argued that her previous variance denial was based on inaccuracies regarding lot compliance and a failure to adequately consider hardship. While one board member felt no new information was presented, others noted procedural errors in the original decision, specifically the failure to list required criteria in the written decision as mandated by state law. Jurta expressed frustration with the process and requested a full reconsideration of her arguments.

What happened

The Board granted the motion for a rehearing, provided that Jurta refiles her application with any new information.

What's next

Jurta may schedule the rehearing for the July 14, 2026, meeting, provided the application is filed and abutters are notified.

00:00 Request for Additional Zoning Board Members

A motion to ask the Select Board to appoint more members to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Speakers: Jeff Newcomb, Jon Warzocha, Jeff Dickinson
See more
What was discussed

Jeff Newcomb requested that the board formally ask the Select Board to increase the number of members to ensure full coverage of positions.

What happened

The motion passed unanimously to have the Land Use Office draft a letter to the Select Board.

What's next

The Land Use Office is tasked with drafting a letter to the Select Board requesting two full-time members and one alternate.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Motion for Rehearing: 91 Maple Street

This involves an appeal by a resident claiming their legal rights were violated due to procedural errors and failure to consider hardship in a previous denial. It highlights friction between a citizen and the board's legal compliance.
Board position: The board acknowledged procedural errors in their previous written decision and granted the motion for a rehearing.
Internal dissent
One board member expressed the view that no new information had been presented to justify a rehearing, though the motion ultimately passed.
medium concern
02

Request for Additional Zoning Board Members

This was an off-agenda topic decided during the meeting. While not inherently a conflict, making substantive motions for staffing changes without prior public notice is a significant transparency matter.
Board position: The board moved to formally request the Select Board appoint two full-time members and one alternate.
medium concern

Split votes

Motion for Rehearing: 91 Maple Street
Approved

Community vs. board tension

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Draft a letter to the Select Board requesting the appointment of 2 full-time Zoning Board members and 1 alternate.
Assigned: Land Use Office

Notable ⁠statements

She felt her rights were violated when the board did not adequately consider hardship in her proposal. — Mary Jurta · Discussing the denial of her variance application for 91 Maple Street. 00:00
State law indicates that each criterion be listed in the decision and it was not included. — Andrew Guptill · Arguing in favor of granting a rehearing for the Maple Street application due to procedural issues. 00:00

Member ⁠positions

5 issues · 8 explicit · 7 inferred · 1 unclear
A split vote in this meeting was recorded without naming the dissenter (e.g. a voice vote). Members whose individual vote could not be confirmed are marked UNCLEAR below — this is not the same as a “yes.” Named votes will be filled in if official minutes record them.
Jon Warzocha
Chair
Present
Special Exception: 25 Bradley Point Ln YES ~
No issues with structure or subsurface disturbance; focused on state permits.
Motion for Rehearing: 91 Maple Street UNCLEAR
Acknowledged the need for unbiased reconsideration of the application.
Request for Additional Zoning Board Members YES ~
Supported the motion to request more members.
Approval of April 21st Minutes YES
Approved as written.
Approval of May 19th Minutes ABSTAIN
Recused from voting.
Jeff Dickinson
Vice Chair
Present
Special Exception: 25 Bradley Point Ln YES ~
Concerned about foundation disturbance but liked moving structure back.
Motion for Rehearing: 91 Maple Street NO
Felt rehearing was unnecessary as no new information was presented.
Request for Additional Zoning Board Members YES ~
Supported the motion to request more members.
Approval of April 21st Minutes YES
Approved as written.
Approval of May 19th Minutes YES
Approved as written.
Andrew Guptill
Alternate
Present
Special Exception: 25 Bradley Point Ln YES ~
Felt moving the building further from the lake offset foundation impacts.
Motion for Rehearing: 91 Maple Street YES
Supported rehearing to correct procedural errors regarding criteria listing.
Request for Additional Zoning Board Members YES ~
Supported the motion to request more members.
Approval of April 21st Minutes ABSTAIN
Recused from voting.
Approval of May 19th Minutes YES
Approved as written.

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.”

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
4
Total speakers
3
Addressed
0
Partial
1
Not addressed
Mary Jurta
07:22
Not addressed
Requested to view the application for the special exception regarding the property at 25 Bradley Point Ln. She sought to review the specific details of the proposed construction. Key concern
Request to see the special exception application.
Board response
The board did not provide a specific verbal response to this request in the transcript, though the information was presumably made available as part of the hearing process.
There is no recorded verbal response from the board members to her specific request in the transcript.
Jennifer John
07:42
Addressed
Expressed that she had no issues with the overall size of the proposed house. However, she raised concerns regarding the potential removal of more trees on the property to accommodate a shed. Key concern
Potential removal of trees for the construction of a shed.
Board response
The applicant (Diven) noted he was working with a landscape architect on tree management, and Board Member Warzocha noted that the shed must comply with shoreline restrictions.
The board addressed the concern by noting the regulatory constraints (shoreline restrictions) that would apply to the shed.
Donna Duclos
08:12
Addressed
Asked for the specific dimensions of the proposed new structure. She was seeking clarification on the scale of the building. Key concern
Dimensions of the new structure.
Board response
The applicant, Jim Diven, responded directly to her question, stating the structure would be 1400 square feet.
The applicant provided the requested dimensions in response to the question.
Mary Jurta
09:47
Addressed
Requested a rehearing for her variance application at 91 Maple Street, arguing that the board failed to properly consider hardship and violated legal procedures. She believes her rights were violated and that previous inaccuracies impacted the board's decision. Key concern
Request for a rehearing and better consideration of hardship/legal procedures.
Board response
After discussion regarding procedural errors in the previous decision, the board granted the request for a rehearing, subject to her refiling with new information.
The board explicitly granted her request for a rehearing.

Accountability ⁠flags

Documented procedural gaps. Each item links to its source.

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 gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning, grok-4-fast · analyzed 2026-06-22.