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

Andover ZBA passes off-agenda motion for new full-time positions and admits to procedural errors in previous decisions.

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

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 the June 16 Andover Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) meeting, two significant issues surfaced that warrant community attention regarding transparency and legal procedure.

First, the Board passed a motion to request that the Select Board appoint two full-time members and one alternate to the ZBA. While the board cited the need for better coverage, this substantive motion regarding board staffing was not included on the public agenda. Residents were not given the opportunity to review or comment on this expansion of the board before the vote was taken.

Second, the Board addressed a motion for a rehearing regarding 91 Maple Street. During this discussion, it was acknowledged that a previous decision made by the Board contained procedural errors—specifically, the failure to list the required criteria in the written decision as mandated by state law. The Board ultimately granted the motion for a rehearing to correct these errors.

When local boards make decisions that affect staffing or fail to adhere to state-mandated legal procedures, it is essential for residents to stay engaged and hold their officials accountable to the standards of transparency and law.

Jun 16, 2026 4 public comments 6 decisions Lively
Notable statements Drag to browse

“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
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

Request for 2 full-time members and 1 alternate

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.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Jim Diven, Jon Warzocha, Jeff Dickinson, Mary Jurta, Jennifer John, Donna Duclos, Andrew Guptill, Jeff Newcomb
What was discussed

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

What happened

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

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

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

What happened

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

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

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

What happened

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

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

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
4
Total speakers
3
Addressed
0
Partial
1
Not addressed
Mary Jurta
00:00
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
00:00
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
00:00
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
00:00
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.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
00:00
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)

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click a block to copy, or use Share to post it.

X / Twitter — by angle

Off-agenda decision regarding board staffing
Transparency Alert: At the June 16 ZBA meeting, the Board passed a motion to request two new full-time members and one alternate from the Select Board. This substantive staffing change was not on the public agenda. Residents... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/andover/zoning-board/2026-06-16/ #MeetingWatch #AndoverNH
313/280 chars
Board admitting to procedural/legal errors
The Andover ZBA admitted to procedural errors at the June 16 meeting. The Board granted a rehearing for 91 Maple Street after acknowledging they failed to list required criteria in a previous written decision, as mandated by... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/andover/zoning-board/2026-06-16/ #MeetingWatch #AndoverNH
313/280 chars
Community concerns regarding environmental impact
At the June 16 ZBA meeting, the Board approved a request to demolish a seasonal home at 25 Bradley Point Ln to build a larger 1,400 sq ft structure. Residents raised concerns regarding the impact on shoreline trees and the lake... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/andover/zoning-board/2026-06-16/ #MeetingWatch #AndoverNH
316/280 chars

X thread

1
What happened at the June 16 Andover ZBA meeting? While some decisions were expected, two issues demand resident attention: an off-agenda motion regarding board staffing and an admission of procedural errors regarding state law. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #AndoverNH
255/280
2
First, the Board passed a motion to ask the Select Board for two new full-time ZBA members and one alternate. This motion was not included on the public agenda, meaning residents were not given prior notice to prepare or comment on this significant staffing request.
266/280
3
Second, the Board granted a motion for rehearing for 91 Maple Street. During the discussion, members acknowledged that a previous decision failed to list required criteria as mandated by state law. This highlights a failure in following the legal procedures required for land-use decisions.
290/280
4
Accountability matters. When boards make substantive moves regarding their own size or fail to follow state-mandated decision protocols, the public deserves to know. Stay informed on Andover's local governance. #AndoverNH #LocalGovernment #Transparency https://meetingwatch.org/nh/andover/zoning-board/2026-06-16/
276/280

Facebook — long form

At the June 16 Andover Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) meeting, two significant issues surfaced that warrant community attention regarding transparency and legal procedure.

First, the Board passed a motion to request that the Select Board appoint two full-time members and one alternate to the ZBA. While the board cited the need for better coverage, this substantive motion regarding board staffing was not included on the public agenda. Residents were not given the opportunity to review or comment on this expansion of the board before the vote was taken.

Second, the Board addressed a motion for a rehearing regarding 91 Maple Street. During this discussion, it was acknowledged that a previous decision made by the Board contained procedural errors—specifically, the failure to list the required criteria in the written decision as mandated by state law. The Board ultimately granted the motion for a rehearing to correct these errors.

When local boards make decisions that affect staffing or fail to adhere to state-mandated legal procedures, it is essential for residents to stay engaged and hold their officials accountable to the standards of transparency and law. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/andover/zoning-board/2026-06-16/ #MeetingWatch #AndoverNH

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

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.”

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.