Your area Not set — showing everywhere
How it works Support this town
Meeting report · Zoning Board of Adjustment
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Zoning Board of Adjustment — March 3, 2026

The meeting featured pointed debate between residents and the applicant regarding the legal scope of the board and the long-term character of the neighborhood.

Date Tuesday, March 3, 2026 Duration 1.3h Speakers 22 Public comments 5 Decisions 4 Lively
▶ Video

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 March 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, significant decisions were made regarding the density and use of land in Goffstown's Agricultural districts.

The Board approved a variance for Lot 19-1, allowing the construction of a two-unit duplex on 1.42 acres. Under current zoning, a use like this typically requires 3 acres. This decision highlights a growing trend of multi-family residential development encroaching on land specifically zoned for agriculture.

During the meeting, a central conflict emerged: Should the ZBA follow the Town Master Plan’s intent to maintain neighborhood character and prevent overcrowding, or should they prioritize the specific legal criteria for granting variances? While the applicant argued that traffic conditions create a 'hardship,' residents expressed concern that these decisions undermine the long-term planning of our community.

Regarding a second application at 40 Henry Bridge Road, the Board has postponed its decision. There were significant discrepancies between the density claims in the application and the actual buildable acreage available. The Board has requested concrete calculations from the applicant before any further action is taken. We will continue to monitor how these density standards are applied in our town.

Mar 3, 2026 1.3h long 22 speakers 5 public comments 4 decisions Lively
❝ Notable statements ↔ Drag to browse

“The proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or threaten public health and safety... the site is more in a transitional zone between the industrial, residential one, and agricultural districts.”

— Matt Peterson (Engineer) · Argument addressing the first two criteria for granting a variance. ▶ 12:54

“I don't think we could just skip the spirit of the ordinance and just do one of the two [public interest and spirit].”

— Speaker G (Board Member) · Discussing the relationship between the public interest and the spirit of the zoning ordinance during board deliberations. ▶ 27:52

“I don't want to be penalized for it being a high traffic corridor... the board should be contemplating the impact of my land for every development that is approved.”

— Andrew Cassidy (Applicant) · Responding to concerns about traffic and arguing that the property's location is a unique hardship. ▶ 57:59

“I don't want to be penalized for it being a high traffic corridor... the board should be contemplating the impact on my land for every development that is approved.”

— Unidentified speaker · Argument regarding why the high traffic volume on Henry Bridge Road due to other town growth should not be used as a basis to deny his variance. ▶ 57:59

“I agreed that they shouldn't be penalized by the traffic because that's not something that's really in their control.”

— Unidentified speaker · Board member expressing agreement that external traffic growth should not constitute a hardship for the individual landowner. ▶ 1:01:45

“We would like to resolve this, but I don't think we can resolve this without a concrete calculation of what you really have on that lot that is buildable.”

— Unidentified speaker · Addressing the discrepancy between the applicant's density claims and the written application's buildable acreage calculation. ▶ 1:18:48
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

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

Transition of agricultural land to multi-family residential use.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The Board reviewed and voted to approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A request for a variance to allow the construction of a two-unit duplex on a 1.42-acre vacant lot in the Agricultural district, which requires 3 acres for such a use. Discussion regarding a variance for a single duplex on Lot 19-1. The applicant addressed concerns regarding traffic volume on Henry Bridge Road, line of sight for the driveway, and potential impacts on neighboring properties.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion regarding three variances for multi-family use in an agricultural zone, including density (dwelling units per buildable acre) and the use of on-site septic instead of public sewer. The board requested clarification on the exact amount of buildable acreage available on the lot.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Multi-family residential development in Agricultural zoning

The core conflict involves densification in an area zoned for agriculture. Residents expressed concerns that the proposal violates the 'spirit of the ordinance' and the Town Master Plan intended to prevent overcrowding, while the applicant argues that existing traffic conditions create a unique hardship.
Board position: The board granted a variance for one lot (Lot 19-1) but postponed a decision on another (Lot 19) pending more technical data, signaling a cautious approach to density.
high concern
02

Impact of nearby 24/7 commercial operations on new residents

A local business owner raised concerns regarding how a new rental duplex would affect traffic and the safety/experience of residents living near a 24-hour towing operation.
Board position: The board facilitated a compromise by requiring the applicant to include specific disclosures in rental leases regarding the neighboring business.
medium concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
5
Total speakers
3
Addressed
1
Partial
1
Not addressed
Unidentified speaker
▶ 21:36
Addressed
The speaker raised concerns regarding the property's location within a flood hazard district and how construction would comply with regulations. They also noted previous abutter concerns regarding property encroachment and traffic congestion on the bend of the road. Key concern
Floodplain compliance, property encroachment, and increased traffic safety/congestion.
Board response
The board (via the applicant) clarified that construction stays out of the floodplain and that the driveway was moved to improve sight distance.
The applicant provided technical explanations regarding elevation and sight distance, and the board member acknowledged the response.
Unidentified speaker
▶ 27:42
Partial
The speaker argued that the board cannot ignore the 'spirit of the ordinance' or the Town Master Plan. They pointed out that the ordinance is specifically designed to prevent overcrowding and maintain housing character. Key concern
The proposed density contradicts the Town Master Plan and the intent of the zoning ordinance to prevent overcrowding.
Board response
The applicant countered that the Master Plan is not the jurisdiction of the ZBA and that the board must follow specific legal criteria for variances.
The board heard the legal argument, but the discussion turned into a debate between the speaker and the applicant regarding the board's legal authority.
Like Bolivar
▶ 48:40
Addressed
The speaker expressed opposition to the project, specifically regarding the potential for rental properties. They noted that while they prefer a single large house over a duplex, they are not planning to fight it aggressively. Key concern
The conversion of the property into rental housing.
Board response
The board asked for clarification on whether the concern was density, traffic, or rentals.
The board engaged with the speaker to identify the specific nature of the opposition.
Don DuBeau (implied via context)
▶ 51:00
Addressed
The speaker, representing a nearby towing service, expressed concerns about traffic and the impact of having children in rental units near a 24/7 operation. They also noted potential noise and lighting issues from their business. Key concern
Traffic increases and the impact of a 24/7 commercial operation on new residents.
Board response
The board and applicant discussed how rental leases could include disclosures about the nearby business to manage expectations.
The board and applicant addressed the practicalities of living near a commercial site through lease language.
Unidentified speaker
▶ 54:00
Not addressed
The speaker stated that the proposal does not fit in the agricultural district and goes against the established rules. Key concern
Non-compliance with agricultural zoning regulations.
Board response
The board member asked for clarification regarding a previous concern about property survey/encroachment.
The speaker provided a brief statement of opposition but did not engage in a dialogue regarding the specific rules mentioned.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Acceptance of previous meeting minutes
The Board moved to accept the minutes following a motion and a second.
Motion carried
Motion for no regional impact
The Board voted on a motion regarding regional impact for the pending application.
Motion carried
Approval of the variance requested by the applicant for Lot 19-1.
The variance was granted based on the five criteria: it is not contrary to public interest, is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance, would do substantial justice, does not diminish surrounding property values, and literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship.
Motion carried
Continuance of the hearing for Lot 19 (40 Henry Bridge Road).
The board voted to postpone the decision until the next meeting to allow the applicant to provide a concrete calculation of buildable acreage.
Motion carried

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

Decision prioritizing density over existing agricultural zoning requirements
At the March 3 ZBA meeting, Goffstown approved a variance to allow a two-unit duplex on 1.42 acres in an Agricultural district—an area that typically requires 3 acres for this use. A significant shift in zoning density for... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-03-03/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
329/280 chars
Community concerns regarding the Town Master Plan being bypassed
The Goffstown ZBA is facing a debate: Follow the Town Master Plan to prevent overcrowding, or stick strictly to narrow legal variance criteria? The March 3 meeting showed a growing tension between community character and new... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-03-03/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
331/280 chars
Inconsistency in density calculations and the need for technical transparency
Can we trust density claims for new developments? The ZBA postponed a decision on 40 Henry Bridge Road (March 3) because the applicant's density claims didn't match the buildable acreage. We need concrete numbers, not... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-03-03/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
324/280 chars

X thread

1
The character of Goffstown’s agricultural zones is changing. At the March 3 ZBA meeting, the board approved a variance that allows multi-family housing on land that doesn't meet the standard acreage requirements. Here is what you need to know. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
272/280
2
First, the board granted a variance for Lot 19-1, allowing a duplex on just 1.42 acres in an Agricultural district—half the 3-acre requirement. This moves us closer to densification in areas meant for farming and open space.
224/280
3
There is a clear tension emerging: Residents argue the board must uphold the Town Master Plan to prevent overcrowding, while developers argue the board should only focus on narrow legal criteria. This affects the long-term feel of our neighborhoods.
249/280
4
The board did pause on a second application (40 Henry Bridge Rd) because the density math didn't add up. They’ve demanded 'concrete calculations' of buildable acreage before proceeding. We will be watching to see if the data matches the promises... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-03-03/
272/280

Facebook — long form

At the March 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, significant decisions were made regarding the density and use of land in Goffstown's Agricultural districts. 

The Board approved a variance for Lot 19-1, allowing the construction of a two-unit duplex on 1.42 acres. Under current zoning, a use like this typically requires 3 acres. This decision highlights a growing trend of multi-family residential development encroaching on land specifically zoned for agriculture.

During the meeting, a central conflict emerged: Should the ZBA follow the Town Master Plan’s intent to maintain neighborhood character and prevent overcrowding, or should they prioritize the specific legal criteria for granting variances? While the applicant argued that traffic conditions create a 'hardship,' residents expressed concern that these decisions undermine the long-term planning of our community.

Regarding a second application at 40 Henry Bridge Road, the Board has postponed its decision. There were significant discrepancies between the density claims in the application and the actual buildable acreage available. The Board has requested concrete calculations from the applicant before any further action is taken. We will continue to monitor how these density standards are applied in our town. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-03-03/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Include language in rental leases acknowledging the existence of the 24-hour tow operation across the street to address abutter concerns.
Assigned: Applicant (Andrew Cassidy)
Provide concrete calculations/information regarding the buildable acreage for Lot 19 to resolve density concerns.
Assigned: Matt Peterson (Keishan Orsam Associates) · Due: 2026-04-07
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 Goffstown.

Report composed by grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-01.