The Peru Gazette

By John T. Ryan

The Frosty Springs Bottling Company’s main building was destroyed by fire on February 3, 2007.  The cause of the fire was never determined. A new building was constructed at a cost of approximately $500,000 and completed in February 2008. Today the building sits idle, while Frosty Springs has its water bottled in Massachusetts and shipped to Peru at considerable cost.  Some residents have asked why the the plant has not been able to resume its bottling operations.

Frosty Springs Bottling Company owner Linda Covel and her husband Donald Covel both state that they do not know why they have not received an occupancy permit.  They say that when Code Enforcement Officer Paul Blaine inspected the building on June 5, 2008 he mentioned a problem with a small stairway, but he did not mention any roadblock to the issuance of a permit. Paul Blaine states he told Mrs. Covel that there were several violations of zoning codes, building codes and local laws.  Following the inspection, Blaine referred the matter to Zoning Board Attorney Thomas Murnane. The next communication between the parties appears to be a January 14^th letter from Murnane to Mrs. Covel’s attorney Mark Cowen. In that letter Murnane stated that the building was not fully constructed when Paul Blaine inspected it, therefore, Blaine could not complete his inspection for compliance with all building codes. Murnane also stated that Blaine had observed an apparent zoning violation that needed to be addressed.  Frosty Springs Bottling appeared to be selling coffee, coffee machines, water coolers, and other items on site.  Murnane stated that such a use would clearly violate the prior zoning approval given for bottling water – an agricultural use. Murnane stated that Frosty Springs Bottling needs to apply to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals for a Use Variance to allow retail sales at the property.

Murnane concluded his letter asking for more information on an outdoor wood boiler on the property noting that the boiler’s location does not appear to comply with the recently passed outdoor wood boiler law. He also asked if a proposed maple sugar operation would involve the retail sale of maple syrup.

The alleged violations are only the latest issues that have delayed the reopening of the Frosty Springs bottling plant. A few weeks after the February 2007 fire the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) ruled that Donald and Linda Covel did not acquire the required APA permit when they constructed the plant in 1990. Nevertheless, after reviewing the proposed operations, the Agency granted an APA permit on November 21, 2007 as an “industrial and commercial” business.

At about the same time, Code Enforcement Officer Paul Blaine took the position that the plant, as operated by the Covels, was commercial in nature rather than agricultural thereby requiring a Town zoning variance. Linda Covel appealed Blaine’s finding to the Peru Zoning Board of Appeals, which agreed with a 1990 Board ruling that the use was agricultural. Subsequently, Paul Blaine issued a building permit on November 26, 2007 and it appeared that the plant might be operating as early as spring 2008. 

In early 2008 there was an even more dramatic turn of events. On February 20, 2008, Donald Covel, acting in his position as Town Supervisor, discharged Paul Blaine as Code Enforcement Officer and assumed the duties of that position. (Covel states that he suspended Blaine with pay and that his actions had nothing to do with zoning issues.) Covel then proceeded to issue a bottling plant occupancy permit to Frosty Springs Bottling Company. On April 1, 2008, The Town Board reinstated Paul Blaine to his position. (In September 2008, a Clinton County Grand Jury indicted the Covels on several misdemeanor charges related to these actions.  In January, 2008 Clinton County Judge Patrick McGill dismissed all the charges with the exception of an obstruction of governmental administration charge against Mr. Covel.  That charge is related to Paul Blaine’s dismissal.)

At this time Paul Blaine says, “I am willing to re-inspect the property if invited to do so.” He said that if the Covels disagree with his finding they are welcome to ask for an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Blaine added, “The Covels could have the occupancy permit today if they would simply follow the proper steps.”