Residents who own property that abuts town wetlands will be exempt from future buffers and wetland regulations.

Voters passed citizen-petitioned zoning Amendment 7 with a 1,836-1,220 vote.

“I’m very pleased that it passed. I’m most pleased for those who own property abutting wetland who now have additional protection for their property rights,” said Bill Dermody, the unofficial leader of the group that submitted the citizen petition.

Amendment 7 was, in part, a reaction to the failed 2006 zoning amendment that would have added an additional 50-foot buffer to the 50-foot setback around some town wetlands.

Before the vote, Mark Dell’Orfano, a member of the petitioning group, said the petition was a proactive approach for landowners protecting property rights.

Planning board members, though, said the amendment was worded in a way that might lead to legal trouble in the future. Of the three citizen-petitioned zoning amendments, none of which were endorsed by the planning board, voters passed only wetland Amendment 7.

Voters rejected citizen-petitioned Amendment 6, which proposed rezoning one property – 54 Rundlett Hill Road – from service industrial to residential. The amendment failed 2,133- 803.

The petitioner, Brian Nolen lives next to the existing home on the property and said the change would have protected his and other neighbor’s properties. The property is currently bordered on three sides by residential zoning.

Planning board members had said the property owner should be involved with rezoning the property.

“We felt that other people should not be trying to zone someone else’s land,” said Town Councilor Kevin Keyes, before the election.

Also rejected, 1,572-1,373, was a petition to allow building congregate-care senior housing in the performance zone along Route 3.

Voters also passed all five planning board zoning amendments.

Of about 14,680 registered Bedford voters, the unofficial number of votes cast for town issues was 3,118, said Ryk Bullock, school district moderator.

About 21 percent of registered voters made it to the polls.

Voters also rejected Amendment 8, which would have allowed for another type of senior housing in the town’s Performance Zone.

With a 1,373-1,572 vote, residents said congregate-care housing facilities should not be allowed in the performance zone.

The five planning board amendments, all of which passed, will make “housekeeping” changes to the zoning ordinances, said Karen White, town planner.

Amendment 1 will change several terms in the wetlands conservation ordinance to better reflect the Administrative Rules of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. It passed with a vote of 2,665-362.

Amendment 2 will change the minimum lighting standards along the Route 3 corridor. It is, according to the amendment, to comply with the IESNA lighting handbook. It passed with a vote of 2,709-332.

Amendment 3 will change terms in the floodplain development ordinance to conform with new national FEMA standards for local flood ordinances.

It passed 2,606-369.

Amendment 4 will allow floral arrangements to be sold within the neighborhood commercial zone. It seeks to legitimize businesses already in that zone, White said. It passed with a vote of 2,650-368.

Amendment 5 is to eliminate “Public/Private Recreation and Open Space” from the town’s zoning Table of Uses. This is, according to the amendment text, to “remove any possible interpretation that ‘open space’ is or could be prohibited in any zone.” It passed by a 2,503-416 vote.