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.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Zoning density and agricultural land use changes
Transition of agricultural land to multi-family residential use. Affected: Local residents, abutters, and the broader community regarding neighborhood character.
zoning change
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
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 00:31 Approval of Minutes
The Board reviewed and voted to approve the minutes from the previous meeting.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 03:46 Variance Application: Andrew Cassidy (Lot 7-1)
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
▶ 1:08:44 Variance Request for Lot 19 (40 Henry Bridge Road)
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.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
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
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
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
Notable statements
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. ▶ 11:00
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. ▶ 30:42
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. ▶ 57:53
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. ▶ 58:39
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. ▶ 1:02:45
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. ▶ 1:17:41
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
5
Total speakers
3
Addressed
1
Partial
1
Not addressed
Unidentified speaker
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 responseThe 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
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 responseThe 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
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 responseThe 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)
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 responseThe 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
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 responseThe 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.
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.
Follow Goffstown
One email when a new report is published from the Zoning Board of Adjustment — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-01.