The two sides in Stafford v. Pontillo seem as far apart as ever after the attorney for James Pontillo, owner of the former Odd Fellows Hall at 6177 Main Road, issued a statement this week that is flatly contradicted by the attorney for the town of Stafford.
In a statement, Pontillo's attorney, Chris Hummel, said, "The town of Stafford brought 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 has 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."
David Roach, attorney for the town, responded, "Mr. Pontillo's press release is a hodgepodge of objectively verifiable lies and contextually misplaced statements. Anyone who can read the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and observe the condition of Mr. Pontillo's building, inside and out, will arrive at that conclusion."
Pontillo and the town have been at odds over the building, which Hummel, in his statement, acknowledges is historic, since Pontillo acquired it at auction from Terry Platt in 2010. While Pontillo has expressed big plans for the building, including opening a pizzeria, for which he's already installed ovens and other kitchen equipment, none of these plans have come to fruition.
He's never acquired a building permit, except for a new roof, to carry through renovation efforts and has been reportedly told, according to public documents acquired by The Batavian, that before he can get a building permit, he must submit stamped, engineered architectural plans. He has never submitted such plans.
Documents reveal that the town has reviewed the consequences of ownership of the building falling to the town and were advised by a former town attorney that either demolition or restoration would be exceptionally costly.
In his statement, Hummel makes other claims that Roach's statement quoted above indicates he believes are false.
- That in 2016 the town hired its own engineer who inspected the property and gave the building a "clean bill of health." And Then two weeks later, a member of the same firm, whom Pontillo says was never in the building, later retracted the first letter and recommended legal action against Pontillo.
- That Pontillo provided two separate engineer reports to the court that state "without reservation" that the building is "basically" safe and structurally sound. "Of about 14 of the alleged code violations in the town's complaint, perhaps two of them have merit."
Hummell states, "The town has hunted down Mr. Pontillo for eight years, and the preset situation involves perhaps a couple of broken windows, some peeling paint, and a canopy/awning repair."
On Friday, Roach told The Batavian the issues to be resolved are more serious than Hummel indicates.
"There is no resolution to this case yet," Roach said. "The Town is trying to work with Mr. Pontillo on his three-pronged proposal: (1) the building will remain vacant and unsafe for occupancy due to ongoing code violations; (2) Mr. Pontillo will replace deteriorated and thus unsafe structural members so as to reduce the risk of collapse; and (3) exterior work will be performed to protect the building from the elements and eliminate the conditions that currently render it a blight, all in accordance with sections under the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code."
