BETHEL — The Bethel Town Board unanimously agreed to table a proposed law regulating private wastewater treatment plants Wednesday, Oct. 14, following a contentious public hearing in which residents questioned the effects on development density, environmental protections and potential taxpayer liability.

The proposed law would establish regulations for privately owned wastewater treatment plants serving residential developments, including requirements for their construction, operation, maintenance and oversight. It would also require financial safeguards, including reserve funds and performance guarantees, intended to protect the town and taxpayers if a system fails or its operator becomes unable to maintain it.

The board initially sought to close the hearing and allow written comments. Following objections from residents, however, the board voted to leave the hearing open and postpone further consideration of Proposed Local Law No. 2 of 2026. No date was set for its continuation.

Members of the Bethel Roundtable presented a coordinated critique of the legislation, arguing that the proposal could undermine provisions of the town’s recently adopted comprehensive plan intended to preserve rural character and protect environmentally sensitive areas.

Denise Frangipane questioned whether the proposed law could allow more intensive residential development in certain areas. Bethel’s zoning code provides different density allowances depending on whether a development has access to municipal sewer service, and Frangipane argued that treating private package plants as equivalent to municipal sewer could allow developers to build more homes.

“The result is not merely regulation of new wastewater technology,” Frangipane said. “It is a change in the zoning standards available to eligible residential development.”

However, Supervisor Daniel Sturm and Councilman Adam Gold both explained that the proposed law would prohibit previously permitted density bonuses associated with package wastewater treatment plants in all districts except the Residential Settlement (RS) district around White Lake. There, developments using package plants would retain the same density allowances as those served by municipal sewer.

Resident Hal Teitelbaum questioned who would be responsible for operating and maintaining the systems if developers abandoned them or the corporations responsible for their operation became insolvent.

The Roundtable also identified what it described as drafting errors, inadequate provisions for long-term environmental monitoring and inconsistencies between the proposed law and a separate conservation subdivision law currently in the works.

The discussion grew contentious when Sturm proposed closing the public hearing while allowing two additional days for written comments. Residents objected, citing the incomplete environmental review.

Gold also expressed concerns about the proposed law, prompting Sturm to question why he had not raised them sooner. Gold responded that some concerns raised during earlier committee discussions had not been incorporated into the law.

The board ultimately agreed to table the proposal and leave the hearing open.

Later, Gold explained his position. “I don’t believe the draft is ready for adoption,” he said, “the plan recommended allowing but limiting private package plants. And I don’t think this law fully met that goal.”

Teitelbaum, speaking after the postponement, called it a “good decision” that showed the board was “listening to the public.”

Gold, who served on the town’s Comprehensive Plan Committee, reiterated his support for regulating private wastewater treatment plants but said the proposal needed further work.

In a follow-up email, Gold clarified that he had previously proposed prohibiting package plants within the town’s Critical Environmental Area, but the restriction was not incorporated into the draft.

He also called for prohibiting new package plants in the Agricultural and Forest Conservation districts, a position he said developed after hearing concerns from constituents.

Gold hopes to include more specific financial protections, including scheduled reviews of reserve funds and requirements establishing who pays for unsold lots and how operations would continue if a private system failed.

“Tabling this proposal should be a commitment to improve it and bring it back promptly,” Gold said, “Adopting a strong package-plant law should remain a priority.”

After the meeting, Sturm emphasized that private package plants are already permitted in Bethel, but the town lacks the additional oversight requirements contemplated by the legislation.

“Right now, package plants are allowed in the whole town,” Sturm said. “They’re allowed right now, but they don’t have the guidelines that we’re trying to pass.”

Sturm explained that the proposal generally would not increase the number of homes permitted under existing zoning. In the agricultural district, for example, he said a 90-acre property subject to three-acre zoning would remain limited to 30 homes.

He also distinguished the wastewater proposal from the town’s pending conservation subdivision law, which would require qualifying developments to preserve about half of their land as open space.

Sturm acknowledged that the public needed more information about the proposals and said the board would review the comments before deciding how to proceed.