Court discussion indicates owner of former Odd Fellows Hall in Stafford intends to bring it up to code as a vacant building

James Pontillo, owner of the former Odd Fellows Hall in Stafford, apparently has the funds to put siding on the building and bring it up to fire code, according to information shared in Genesee County Supreme Court on Thursday morning.

The questions, according attorney David Roach, representing the Town of Stafford, is exactly whether Pontillo is planning to leave the building vacant and whether that is permissible under the town's building code.

Roach wants to consult with the architect who provided the parties in the case with a scope of work and budget. Roach said that Matthew Hume has provided two letters that seem to indicate that Hume's scope of work contemplates curing only those code violations applicable to a vacant building.

In order to clarify whether that's an acceptable offer from Pontillo, Roach said he needs to talk with Hume and determine whether that is actually what is being proposed, and if it is, is that legal? 

The total cost is expected to be about $55,000, with the cost of new siding estimated at $45,000.  Roach told Judge Diane Devlin after a recess that he reviewed financial statements on a mobile device provided by Pontillo that indicated he has $55,000 in cash available for the project.

The case is continued until Nov. 7 to give Roach time to research the issues related to the proposal.

During a discussion of the case, Attorney Chad Hummel, representing Pontillo, told Devlin that Hume engaged in the case even before he was hired by Pontillo and that the town had previously received a letter stating he would need six months to draw up plans for restoration of the building.

Roach quibbled with that representation, saying that the town wasn't asking for completed plans; rather, the town requested a scope of work, cost estimate, and schedule for completion.

Outside of court, The Batavian attempted to interview Pontillo with his attorney present and Hummell asked The Batavian to submit questions via email, promising a speedy response. Among The Batavian's questions is whether it is Pontillo's intention to leave the building vacant. The Batavian had not received a response by time of publication.

UPDATE 5:30 p.m.: Hummell responded for Pontillo. We asked Pontillo if he planned to leave the building vacant, and Hummell said, "We plan to follow the current Court Order, which requires us to get the building in full compliance with the NYS Uniform Fire Prevention Code.  We will develop further plans, if appropriate, after this stage."

We asked if leaving vacant was fair to the community, Hummell said, "With all due respect, the Pontillo's financial and other personal investments in this property are not for the community.  It will be fair however to allow them the time and space to get the building in full fire code compliance."

We noted that the building seems to be in worse condition now than when he acquired it so what assurances can Pontillo give the community that it once again becomes a building the community can take pride in, and Hummell wrote back, "That may be your opinion? The architect's current report and the engineer's report (hired by the Town) from back in 2016 clearly state otherwise."

He also said, "This matter is not about pride.  It is about the right to own property free from harassment.  Again, our current aim is to get the building into full code compliance, and we will."

We asked that while Pontillo showed he has the $55,000 available, would spending that potentially deplete his funds, and so could he really afford it, Hummell said, "Yes, and we supplied the proof.  If we could not afford it, how could we 'return it to a building the community can take pride in'?'