The planning board voted not to endorse three citizen petitioned amendments to the Bedford zoning ordinance.

The three amendments, Articles 6, 7 and 8, will appear on the town ballot in March, stating the planning board does not recommend the amendments.

For Amendment 6, voters will decide whether to rezone a 20-acre parcel from the service industrial zone to the general residential zone.

A 1,572-square-foot house is currently located on the Rundlett Hill Road property, which is owned by trustees Steven, Alan and Gary Chartrand, Planning Director Karen White said.

“While I’m sympathetic to the individuals involved on both sides of this, I personally have to really look at this as effectively a special-interest petition and I can’t really see where this is an issue that’s in the best interest of the town,” said Harold Newbury, planning board vice chairman.

The petition was submitted by Brian Nolen, of 51 Rundlett Hill Road. The property was zoned industrial in 1974.

“You can see how back then it probably made since. There were no houses on that side of Rundlett Hill Road. Since then, it’s been developed as residential,” said Nolen.

Attorney Donald Kennedy spoke on behalf of the Chartrands, who are against the amendment, he said.

Neighbors should have done due diligence in finding out what the abutting properties were zoned, he said.

“When somebody comes into an area like this and then, against the will of the owner, tries to spot zone, we would hope you’d vote to disapprove this,” said Kennedy.

The board voted 5-0 against the amendment. Newbury, Mike Burns, Paul Goldberg, Neal Casale and town Councilor Kevin Keyes voted. Chris Riley and Public Works Director Jim Stanford abstained.

For Amendment 7, voters will decide whether to approve four changes to the Wetlands Conservation Ordinance.

The changes are for property owners who have already built structures more than 50 feet from wetlands. These structures would not be subject to further setback ordinances.

Goldberg said definitions in the amendment could lead to legal problems for the town in the future.

“I see a lot of legal stumbling blocks and I think the effort is good, but that portion of the proposed article is troublesome,” he said.

Newbury said some of the writing is “at best, open to interpretation.”

Bill Dermody, of 39 Birchwood Circle, said the amendment is necessary for wetland abutters to protect their properties.

“What you’re suggesting is that we leave 650 properties in this town – well known to the town, Karen (White) has the list – vulnerable to another attempt and another setback coordinate next year,” he said.

Of the people who voted in March 2006, 80 percent voted against a buffer, he said.

“The town has spoken. The voters have said ‘no,’” he said.

The board voted 6-0, with Stanford abstaining, to not endorse the amendment.

If approved by voters, Amendment 8 will allow at-least 62-year-old housing be allowed in the Performance Zone.

White said congregate care housing could be built in the office, commercial or service industrial zones in town already.

“What this proposal does is it asks to reopen the Performance Zone to independent senior housing, 62 and over, but without a density limit, without an affordable housing component and basically with the reduced parking of an assisted living facility,” White said.

Without discussion from the public, the board voted 5-0 to not endorse the amendment. Keyes and Stanford abstained.

The planning board is proposing amendments 1 through 5, which are mostly housekeeping changes.

The public did not offer comment on those amendments during the Jan. 22 hearing.

For a complete list of zoning amendments, visit www.bedfordnh.org.