(File photo)
By Mike Pettinella
For Video News Service
The dispute between the Town of Stafford and James Pontillo, owner of the former Stafford Trading Post at Routes 5 and 237, could be approaching its resolution.
A settlement is within reach, said David Roach of DiMatteo Roach & Kelly of Warsaw, the attorney representing the town in a drawn-out legal battle over building code violations at the 134-year-old historic structure.
“We’re optimistic. I feel encouraged,” Roach said, during a break in Thursday morning’s proceedings at Genesee County Supreme Court.
Most of the latest round of negotiations took place in conference outside of Judge Diane Y. Devlin’s courtroom. Roach, Pontillo and Chad Hummel, Pontillo’s attorney were in court for less than 10 minutes.
Apparently, Pontillo, working with architect/engineer Matthew Hume, has taken care of many of the violations cited by the town.
Pontillo said he believes he has reached a point where the Stafford Town Board, at its meeting next Monday night, will approve a recommendation by Roach to issue a permit to complete the required items on the violations’ list.
The goal of the board, Roach said, is to receive architectural or stamped engineered plans for the necessary construction in conjunction with a building permit application.
Roach did confirm that the building can remain vacant as long as it does not cause blight and is safe to the community.
According to Chapter 3, General Requirements, Section 301.3 of the New York State Property Maintenance Code:
Vacant premises, structures and portions thereof, or vacant land shall be maintained by the owner in a clean, safe, secure and sanitary condition as provided herein so as not to cause a blighting problem or adversely affect the public health or safety.
“I’m encouraged we can get a working agreement, but I’m not sure if Mr. Hume can get plans by Dec. 19th (the next scheduled court date),” Roach said. “If not we will need another date after the 19th to keep tabs.”
He added that he’s trying to reach an agreement on what work needs to be performed under various section of the state property maintenance code.
“That’s the fine detail that we have to work out. That’s where we are,” he said.
Pontillo said he expects Town Code Enforcement Officer Gene Sinclair to do a “drive-by … and then give a report as to what he would like to see done.”
He said he hopes the town board goes along with Roach’s proposal to keep things moving in a positive direction.
Pontillo’s attorney said it’s up to the town board to make the right decision.
“If not, then we’ll probably file a motion to vacate the default judgment against Mr. Pontillo and we’ll litigate this thing from ground zero,” he said. “We’ve dragged it back and forth across the field to try and get a resolution – and if we can’t get to a resolution, we might as well go back and litigate this on our own terms.”