GENESEE COUNTY/Stafford/Supreme Court justice gives Pontillo until September 5th to move toward inspection

Attorney David Roach makes a point while speaking to James Pontillo following Genesee County Supreme Court appearance on Thursday morning. Gene Sinclair, Town of Stafford code enforcement officer, is at right. (Photo by Mike Pettinella)

By Mike Pettinella
For Video News Service

Genesee County Supreme Court Judge Diane Y. Devlin on Thursday morning delivered a clear message regarding legal action brought by the Town of Stafford against the owner of the former Stafford Trading Post.

“Enough is enough,” the justice said following statements by attorney David Roach of DiMatteo Roach & Kelly of Warsaw, representing the town in this matter, and Pontillo, who purchased the 134-year-old historic structure about 14 years ago.

As requested by the town, Judge Devlin gave Pontillo until a scheduled 11 a.m. Sept. 5th court date to obtain a professional engineer to inspect the building and, ultimately, to provide stamped plans and specifications that render the building in compliance with municipal codes. The town also is asking for a building permit application, construction plans and electrical inspection certificate.

The town filed the complaint with the Genesee County Clerk’s Office on May 30 – about a month after Code Enforcement Officer Gene Sinclair placed a certificate of abandonment on the two-story building, citing numerous code violations.

Sinclair appeared in court with Roach.

Judge Devlin noted the dispute between the town and Pontillo has gone on much too long – for at least 11 years – and agreed with Roach’s contention “to keep this on a short leash as it can not continue to be protracted indefinitely.”

The judge then said she wishes to “move forward” on this case, adding that the community is tired of the whole situation.

She asked Pontillo what he is going to do to address the stated violations.

Pontillo, who appeared without his attorney, said that he believed the town wanted to have the building demolished, adding that he has put $100,000 into the structure.

Addressing the judge, he said, “If you were to walk in there, in less than 15 minutes you’d see it wasn’t abandoned.”

Roach said engineering firm Clark Patterson Lee inspected the building in 2016 on the town’s behalf and advised the town to evict Pontillo’s three upstairs tenants due to unsafe conditions. The Town followed the engineer’s recommendations.

He then reiterated the town’s stance, which prompted Judge Devlin to ask how long it would take for Pontillo to obtain an engineer to inspect the building. Roach said he figured 30 days was enough time for Pontillo to hire an engineer. The parties then settled on the Sept. 5th date.

Roach emphasized that the town does not want to demolish the structure, which originally was the Order of Odd Fellow building at Routes 5 and 237, but desires to have Pontillo fix it up and keep it on the tax rolls.

ROACH: PLAY BY THE RULES

Roach urged Pontillo to untie the Town of Stafford’s hands by following the rules set forth in the complaint. Speaking to Video News Service following Thursday’s proceedings, Roach pointed out the urgency in getting the dispute settled.

“Sometimes to get things done … when it’s not completely within your hands, you have to use the leverage of the law to get it done,” he said. “So, to state that in a complaint, that the town can, under law, through court procedures, ultimately end up potentially with the right to demolish the building, you state it. Otherwise, it could potentially be waived as a form of relief.”

Noting that Pontillo was listening to his comments, Roach said the complaint “conveys the message that we’re serious about this.”

“Again, we don’t want to tear it (the former Stafford Trading Post) down, but if you, Mr. Pontillo, leave us with absolutely no option, meaning, if you don’t do it yourself or if you don’t give title to us and allow us to do it, then our hands are tied.

“We can’t have a continued unsafe building and a blight within the community that sits there forever — continuing to deteriorate because you refuse to submit a complete application for the building permit. Everyone plays by the same rules here. No one is above them, including Mr. Pontillo.”

VNS: It seems like the gist of the whole thing is that — even though he’s been doing work on the building – is that you need specific documentation from an engineer and an electrical statement, correct?

Roach: Most work, most construction, but if you’re doing rough in plumbing, electrical, if you’re doing anything that involves the integrity of the structure, you need a building permit. Code enforcement officers can speak to that as well. When I hear I’ve put $100,000 into this property, I don’t know if that means … a combination of work you’ve put into it and the purchase price. But, it’s concerning to hear that someone has put in $100,000 into a property and hasn’t received the building permit. Anyone who wants to do code work on a building needs a building permit under the Uniform Code.

VNS: He (Pontillo) said that he has gone to the town looking for building permits … the word that came to us is that he went for building permits on at least a couple of occasions and was denied.

Roach: Yeah … you can’t just say, I want a building permit and they’re handed out like candy. You need to have the stamp engineered plans and specifications that will show us that the work you’re going to perform is according to code. And then we’ll issue the building permit based on those specifications and plans.

A contractor doesn’t show up to a code enforcement officers office and just say, Hey, I’m going to build something. give me a building permit. No, you got to have the plans. That is what we have said time and time again, stated in the complaint. It seems to be overlooked, but that’s how the process works. Those are the rules. Those are the rules that we all abide by, and that’s what we’re trying to enforce here with Mr. Pontillo.

VNS: You stated inside (the courtroom) that you’ve got information from the engineer that the building should be condemned, that it’s not safe.

Roach: It’s attached to the complaint.

VNS: So, are you saying that it’s condemned?

Roach: Not condemned. A certificate of occupancy has been revoked. You can go in it. You can walk in it, but it can’t be occupied. You can’t have tenants living in there. You can’t have a business operating in there with the public coming in. Mr. Pontillo can go in. It’s not condemned, in that regard. The certificate of occupancy has been revoked.

VNS: As far as your motion of abandonment, what is the basis of that motion?

Roach: That’s not a motion, that’s a plenary action, that’s in the complaint. And the basis for that is real property law, Article 19 B, and it’s, it’s very specific as to what conditions have to exist, and it’s got a very detailed and quite lengthy procedure to arrive at the point where you can file a 19 B action.

And part of that procedure allows for the property owner, after receiving the certificate of abandonment, which Mr. Pontillo was served with, to have 30 days in order to bring the property up to code. I would think here, I would imagine, that had he said, I’m not going to bring it up to code within 30 days but here’s the engineered plans on how I’m going to do it, and here’s what the construction schedule as to when it’s going to be done, there would have not been no abandonment.

For his part, Pontillo said he has reached out to engineering firms in the past, but will do so again to fulfill the judge’s order.

“I’ll reach out to other ones too, and if they deny for whatever reason at least that will I’ll show that we’re making an effort to retain someone,” he said. “Because someone might say, ‘Yeah, I could help you, but I can’t help you for another month’ so we have to get something in writing.”