A proposal to enlarge the lot sizes of property in the town’s rural agricultural districts drew sharply opposing viewpoints at a recent meeting of the Weare Planning Board.

About a dozen people attended a public hearing Nov. 16 to consider zoning ordinance changes that might appear on the town warrant in March. Scheduled topics included increasing the size of rural agricultural lots and decreasing the required acreage of residential lots.

Currently, both zones require 200 feet of frontage and two acres of dry land, said planning board Chairman Paul Morin. Proposed modifications to the zoning ordinances would likely expand the rural agricultural lot size to five acres and reduce the residential lot size to 1.5 acres.

However, the board and the public focused entirely on the size of rural agricultural lots throughout the three-hour discussion. While some board members and residents thought broader rural lots would benefit the town through open space, others said it would hinder property owners’ ability ability to sell their land.

Resident Bob Bailey spoke out against the greater rural lot sizes, saying that he had planned to sell some of his land to finance his retirement.

“We’ve worked and worked all our lives for our land, and now we want to sell it,” said Bailey, who added that he’d recently lost money in the stock market and spent $15,000 in a legal dispute with the town over his driveway.

“The developer is not your enemy,” Bailey said. “Everybody here lives in a house that was built by a developer at some time.”

Stephen Najjar, who sits on the Weare Conservation Commission and chairs the open spaces committee, said the planing board should commission a study by a professional planner to inform them of the effects of zoning changes.

“Right now, I’m positive that no one’s looked at what areas of town are open to higher density,” Najjar said. “I can appreciate the feel of a town center. New Boston has it, Henniker has it, but if you really want to create it, you need to plan for it. I don’t think we should just start shifting zones around without knowing what we’re doing.”

Morin said voters might be unwilling to support a study on zoning because of the dollar value attached. Such proposals have failed in the past, Morin said.

A proposed $15,000 community services study on the 2006 town warrant failed by a margin of 662-967, despite a recommendation by the board of selectmen.

Voters might be more likely to support such a measure with greater information, Najjar said.

“The problem is, we’re not getting the message out of why we need a study,” Najjar said. “If people don’t know about it, they’ll just think it’s something else they’re being asked to spend money on.”

Planning board member Frank Bolton spoke against a zoning study for financial and practical reasons.

“Money warrant articles won’t be successful,” Bolton said.

“I’ve talked to nine towns, and not one of them have based their lot size on a study.”

Bolton spoke in favor of larger lot sizes partially because they would attract higher-priced homes to the area.

“Smaller lots bring less money,” Bolton said. “You’d be more inclined to build a $500,000 house on a five-acre lot. The other side of that is smaller lots make for more affordable housing.”

Kathi Melcher was one of several residents who spoke against the larger lot sizes. Melcher said she owns more than 10 acres of land in town, and has campaigned against five-acre zoning in the past.

“There’s a small segment that’s shoving five-acre zoning down everybody’s throat,” Melcher said. “This would take land away from people in the rural agricultural zone, and that’s not right. There needs to be more study.”

Speaking on the other side of the issue, resident Paul Kosciuzek said he supports five-acre zoning because it would lead to a lighter population.

“I’m in favor of open space and keeping a rural sense of the town. It would mean less people, less students and less people needing town services, which is harder on your tax dollar,” Kosciuzek said.

Board members agreed informally that they should draft a warrant article on the subject of five-acre zoning to appear on the March town warrant. In order to appear on the warrant, a draft article must be posted by Jan. 12, Morin said, and at least one public hearing must be held on the subject.

Jan. 23 marks the final day the board could hold a public hearing on the ordinance change, Morin said.

To complete the draft article in time for deadline and public hearings, board members agreed to hold a special meeting on Dec. 7.

The window for a petitioned warrant article closes on Dec. 13. Najjar had advised board member to deliberate before then.

“If you don’t take this up before the window closes, someone else could write (the warrant article) for you,” he said.