GENESEE COUNTY/Pontillo proves that he can pay for repairs to bring former Stafford Trading Post up to code but ‘vacancy’ issue in question

(File photo)

By Mike Pettinella
For Video News Service

UPDATED – Oct. 18 at noon with additional comments from attorneys (in italics).

The attorney representing the Town of Stafford in legal proceedings against James Pontillo, owner of the former Stafford Trading Post on Route 5, on Thursday says he needs to look into what he calls “a unique suggestion” that involves bringing the 134-year-old historic building up to code while maintaining its vacant status.

“We need to determine – we the town (of Stafford) – if the scope of what Mr. Pontillo’s architect has submitted will comply with the law, the code,” said David Roach of DiMatteo Roach & Kelly of Warsaw, following a session in Genesee County Supreme Court with Judge Diane Y. Devlin presiding. “As it stands right now, it’s a unique suggestion here as to having a vacant building that meets code.”

Roach explained that when submitting a building application, “there’s a site plan (and) baked into all that is a corresponding use of the building.”

“Vacant is not a use, it’s a condition,” he said, adding that what Pontillo and his attorney, Chad Hummel of Rochester, seems to have submitted to the court are plans for Batavia architect/engineer Matthew Hume to address multiple code violations while the structure remains vacant.

During the court proceeding, it was reported that a letter from Hume – which was received by attorneys just prior to the 10 a.m. start time – indicated that it would cost $45,000 for Pontillo to side the building and another $10,000 for work to be performed on 11 columns in the building to comply with the town’s fire code.

Roach opened by stating that Pontillo provided an initial letter from Hume showing the scope of the work to some extent but no construction schedule or budget. He said the town is prepared to file a default judgment against Pontillo if he doesn’t comply with the court order.

Concerning the letter received today, he said that he needs “more time to digest it,” adding that he believes the case is taking a different course, one which would get the building to fire code but would remain vacant.”

Devlin that mentioned a figure of $600,000, which apparently is the cost to restore the building back to historical standards.

Reached on Thursday night, Hummel said was “a hearsay” comment by Hume, who speculated that a total renovation of the building could approach $500,000 to $600,000. Roach, in an email, agreed, stating that amount was “not an official quote or estimate.”

She then asked if the code allowed for a vacant building.

Roach responded by saying there would be no certificate of occupancy in that case.

“At a minimum here today, we need to see if he’s got the funds for at least the $55,000 scope (of the project),” Roach said.

Hummel referred to Hume’s first letter which stated it would take about six months to develop a reasonable budget despite, in Hummel’s words, “all good faith efforts.”

Minutes later, he asked if there was “submitted evidence” of complaints about the building to the court.

Roach countered by stating that wasn’t pertinent at this point since they were in the “settlement negotiations phase” and not a trial.

He added that Hume considered the building to be “in relatively good shape and has good bones.” He said that Hume went through the code violation list “one by one” to reach the $55,000 price tag.

At that point, Devlin told Hummel to share proof of Pontillo’s finances with Roach and town officials before calling for a short recess to discuss Hume’s second letter and to view financial documents. Roach said he was satisfied that Pontillo had enough money in his account to cover the $55,000 expense.

The next court date is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. Nov. 7.

On Thursday night, Hummel said that he expects to meet with Roach and Hume in the near future to review the architect’s plans and to decide if the town requires any additional work. He said he believes it would take two to three months to complete the work.

HISTORICAL SOCIETY REP WEIGHS IN

Laura Giacchino, incoming president of the Stafford Historical Society, said she has been keeping tabs on this situation. She was at the court today and said she took exception to statements that the building has been the subject of numerous complaints from residents.

“The only complaint that has been issued is the building next door, which is owned by the person who initially was trying to buy the building before Pontillo did,” she said. “They wanted to put a gas station on it and have a parking lot. It’s definitely in the best interest for that one person.”

Giacchino said there are many Stafford residents who do not want the building taken down. She downplayed comments such as the structure is a “blight” on the business district.

“There’s no business district in Stafford,” she said. “It’s almost funny.”

She said she is reorganizing the local historical group, whose goal is preventing the town or anyone else from taking the building down.

“It’s on the National Register. It’s a place of significance,” she said, adding that her house in the hamlet is the oldest in Genesee County.

Giacchino said she hopes that the parties settle this issue soon, without going to trial.

“That would be an expensive venture and it’s pretty expensive for all of us taxpayers to have two separate lawyers for the town, one specifically to go after Pontillo,” she said “The town board has said that they don’t want to tear it down, which is very different than the information they have been saying all along privately.

“If that’s the case, then the judge should give it to the Stafford Historic Society and let us fix it up. There are grants available. There are people in the town that really want to donate.”