(File photo) Left-James Pontillo with wife Laura at a Town Board meeting earlier this year. (Right-Former Stafford Trading Post building)
By Mike Pettinella
For Video News Service
The lawyer for James Pontillo, owner of the former Stafford Trading Post at Routes 5 and 237, has come out on the offensive, claiming that “perhaps two” of the 14 code violations in the town board’s complaint have merit.
In a press release dated Nov. 13, attorney Chad Hummel of Rochester stated that “the Town has hunted Mr. Pontillo down for eight years and the present situation involves perhaps a couple broken windows, some peeling paint and a canopy/awning repair.”
Pontillo, Hummel and David Roach, representing the town in this matter, last appeared in Genesee County Supreme Court on Nov. 7th, with Roach reporting that the parties were moving closer to an agreement over the compliance issues.
Roach, speaking to Video News Service on Wednesday, reiterated that the structure (built in 1890 as the hamlet’s Odd Fellows Hall) could stay vacant — per the New York State Property Maintenance Code — while Pontillo worked on the violations cited by the town.
“It can remain vacant under the code as long as it’s improved to the extent that it’s not a blight or a threat to anyone’s safety,” he said.
Monday, November 11th, 2024, Regular Town Board meeting/file photo
Roach reported on the latest court proceedings to town board members during executive session on Monday night. Apparently, the board has yet to take further action.
Roach did say, however, that 11 columns in the building’s basement “need significant structural work” that require stamped architectural or engineering plans before permits can be issued.
“The building has to be structurally sound enough that it won’t collapse under its own weight or through a live load (such as heavy snowfall),” Roach said.
He added that he’s still encouraged by what has transpired in court thus far but has to get back to Hummel and Pontillo’s architect/engineer, Matthew Hume, before commenting further.
Meanwhile, Hummel decided to release a lengthy statement, defending Pontillo and noting the “many members of the local community” who have showed up at court in support of Pontillo.
The next scheduled court date is Dec. 19th.
(File photo/Mike Pettinella initial court appearance)
Following is the text of the press release:
“The Town of Stafford brought on a claim for “Abandonment” as well as a laundry list of claimed code violations back in May 2024. Now that the matter has been vetted and challenged by Mr. Pontillo and his legal team, the only thing that appears to be abandoned is the “abandonment” claim itself.
“The Town had sought to seize ownership and possibly demolish Mr. Pontillo’s property for what now appears to be a few petty code violations, at worse. The property was never abandoned. It is a vacant commercial structure that is sealed and protected and often tended to. Mr. Pontillo has dutifully paid all of his real property taxes on the property.
“Several years ago, the Town hired its own engineer to examine the property and the engineer who physically inspected the building gave the building an overall ‘clean bill of health.’ This letter was dated June 6, 2016. For some inexplicable reason, just two weeks later, on June 24, 2016, a member of the same firm wrote a letter to the Town essentially asking the Town to disregard the first letter, and to seek immediate legal action against Mr. Pontillo. The individual who wrote the second letter was never in the building. That was eight years ago, and the Town has not stopped coming after him since.
“Mr. Pontillo has presently provided two separate engineer reports to the Court that document, without reservation, that the building is basically safe and structurally sound. Of the 14 alleged code violations in the Town’s Complaint, perhaps two of them have merit. The Town has hunted Mr. Pontillo down for eight years, and the present situation involves perhaps a couple broken windows, some peeling paint and a canopy/awning repair.
“Mr. and Mrs. Pontillo are grateful for those in the community that continue to support them, and they are hopeful that everyone in the community can understand how difficult it can be to ‘fight city hall.’”