Bethel Mills Seeks To Sever Property
From Act 250 Jurisdiction

On Sept. 14, Bethel Mills, through its attorney Dan Hershenson, filed a "request for jurisdictional opinion" with the district environmental board coordinator, Julia Schmitz, to remove the environmental board’s jurisdiction over certain residential property adjacent to the Bethel Mills industrial facility in Bethel village. The residential property in question is the so-called "Mills Property," situated north of the Bethel Mills facility between the industrial facility and the residence of Mary Pavone.

In March 2004, the district environmental commission ruled that there is a legal "nexus" between the Bethel Mills industrial facility and its residential parcel in terms of environmental exigencies, so the residential property falls under Act 250 environmental jurisdiction. The ruling was in the context of certain conditions imposed on Bethel Mills pursuant to application for a permit for improvements to its facility that were made in the 1980s and 1990s, but for which Bethel Mills had not sought Act 250 permit approval at that time.

Bethel Mills has expressed concern that if the residential parcel remains subject to the jurisdiction of local environmental authorities, it may be difficult to find a buyer for it. In August of this year, on appeal by Bethel Mills, the state environmental board upheld the district ruling, and observed that the parcel provides screening, both visual and aural, between the Bethel Mills industrial facility and other residential land. However, the state board also noted that Bethel Mills acquired the adjacent residential property after it had made the improvements to its industrial facility. For that reason, the board suggested that the residential property might not be categorized as "involved land," in terms of current statutes, but that the question should be addressed to the local environmental coordinator.

Bethel Mills’ request to the local environmental coordinator emphasizes that it acquired the residential property long after it had made the improvements to its industrial facility, that it has never used the residential property for any commercial or industrial activity, and that it has made no physical change to the residential parcel in support of activities in the adjacent industrial facility.

The request also rebutted specific allegations that Bethel Mills had managed the parcel for industrial activity. The filing noted that Bethel Mills does not rent the parcel exclusively to its employees, that rental fees among Bethel Mills personnel and other tenants are consistent, that the shed on the property is used to store the personal effects of the tenants and not for any material owned by Bethel Mills, that Bethel Mills did not fill the residential swimming pool to accommodate future commercial activities but because it was in poor condition and it wanted to eliminate the risk to children and pets.

It also noted that the property was not used to satisfy the zoning setback requirement for a shed on the commercial parcel (although Bethel Mills noted it may be necessary to seek a setback variance if, when the residential property is sold or divided, the dividing line is less than 25 feet); and that the residential property is not used as a truck turnaround or as snow storage for its industrial facility.

Bethel Mills has frequently pointed out that while it may have once hoped to use the residential property as a working extension of its industrial facility, it was prevented from doing so by town rulings, since it falls in a residential zone.

By Chris Costanzo