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."
In Stafford v. Pontillo, a resolution appears to be at hand to ensure that the former Odd Fellows Hall, 6177 Main Road, meets the state code for vacant buildings.
Both parties were at the Genesee County Courthouse on Thursday to discuss the case, and David Roach, attorney for the town of Stafford, said they were in the process of negotiating a framework for bringing the building back to a state of code compliance, though not back to a condition that would allow occupancy.
"The code allows you to have a vacant building," Roach said. "But the code says if it is vacant, it still has, and this is the New York State property maintenance code, which says it still has to comply with certain conditions under varying sections of the code. So that's what we're working on right now, addressing what needs to be done under various sections of the New York property maintenance code."
James Pontillo said he still plans to restore the building, at least to the point of permitting businesses and residents to occupy it. To get there, he said he needs more cooperation from the town. In the meantime, he intends to meet the town's demands for basic code compliance.
"Some of it is aesthetics. That's part of it, the outside and stuff like that," Pontillo said. "The inside, everything was done for safety when we had tenants in that, so that hasn't changed."
There seems to be some discrepancy in understanding about whether building permits will be needed for the work Pontillo will be required to do. Pontillo told The Batavian that he won't need a building permit or architectural drawings for the work needed. Roach indicated that stamped architectural plans are required.
"Plans will still have to be submitted with a building permit application," Roach said.
The requirement for stamped architectural plans, it seems, have always been at the heart of the now decade-long conflict between Pontillo and the town over rehabilitation of the building.
In a FOIL request from The Batavian for all the documents in the town's files on the former Odd Fellow's Hall, the topic came up four times, with Pontillo being told he needed to submit stamped, engineered architectural plans to obtain a building permit. The trove of documents indicate he never submitted such plans and Roach made the same assertion.
A decade ago, Pontillo shared his ambitions for the building with The Batavian. Later, Pontillo invited The Batavian into the building to see all the kitchen equipment installed downstairs—high-end pizza ovens and other equipment—in anticipation of opening a pizza parlor.
On Thursday, Pontillo blamed the town and circumstances for the stalled restoration plans.
"There's been a lot of litigation. The town really comes across as being litigious," Pontillo said. "I think three days after I bought the building, I started having back and forth (with the town). I don't think it helps that we've had multiple clerks in that amount of time. We've got, I think, five inspectors, and (Gene) Sinclair's been in and out. That doesn't help. So when you also have attorneys, I think they've found that attorneys have changed since I've been in the community at least four times. So when you start adding all those, they have to keep on starting over. Many things get missed."
Pontillo said he did submit stamped plans for the roof replacement and that he submitted drawings for other work inside the building.
He also said he has no issue with Sinclair, who is now working with him as he remodels his personal residence at another location in the town, and he said town residents have been incredibly supportive. He said his issues seem to be with the town board.
Roach said blaming the town misses the point that Pontillo has never submitted stamped, engineered plans in order to get a building permit.
"You can look at one very objective thing. Did he ever submit architectural or stamped, engineered plans for the construction in conjunction with a building permit application?" Roach said, adding the answer is "No."
"Plans have never been stamped, engineered plans or architectural plans were never submitted," Roach said. "So to say, 'you never allowed me to do the work,' Well, you never did what you were supposed to in order for us to approve work."
Pontillo was hopeful outside the courtroom that, while he thinks the issues are with the town, they can reach an agreement so he eventually moves forward with more ambitious plans for the historic building.
"We're trying to get over these hurdles that the town has put in front of us that everybody's asking that (when he will finish), and until we know that the town's going to back off and allow us to finish and then maybe we can sit down and put that plan together," he said. "So that's why I stayed with it as a vacant building right now."
Former Odd Fellow's Hall in Stafford File photo by Howard Owens.
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'?'
County property tax record photo of 6177 Main Road, Stafford, the former Odd Fellows Hall from 2009, which James Pontillo acquired at auction in 2010.
The following is a timeline of actions and events related to the former Odd Fellows Building, 6177 Main Road, Stafford. The information comes from documents obtained by The Batavian with a Freedom of Information Law request to the town of Stafford for documents related to the building. We also include links to our prior coverage.
Dec. 17, 2010, James Pontillo secures the deed to 6177 Main Road, Stafford, after winning the property at auction for $40,700
In the Dec. 10, 2010, Board minutes, Chairman William VanAlst informed the board that James Pontillo had not submitted a site plan review.
March 21, 2011, Board minutes, James Pontillo submitted an application for an area variance to erect an 8-foot high fence on the west and north borders of his property.
Aug. 8, 2016, Board minutes, “Mr. Pontillo addressed the Board Members regarding his frustration about obtaining a building permit for his property.” There was a long discussion. “The most important requirement is that he submits a complete engineering drawing plan to the town code officer.”
April 11, 2011, ZBA board minutes, the board votes to deny Pontillo an area variance for an 8-foot high fence.
May 16, 2011, ZBA board minutes, Lester Mullin, code enforcement officer informs the board that Pontillo is planning to build a two-foot high flower box and put a six-foot fence on top of the flower box. The board tells Mullin that it is a code enforcement issue.
Jan. 12, 2015, James Pontillow issued an order to remedy notice. Items listed include, finish roof, repair/replace fire escape, complete permenant outside surface, attach electrical meters, clean up construction debris, ensure electrical is safe, provide town an electrical inspection.
Nov. 20, 2015, order signed by Judge Mark J. Grisanti, Genesee County Supreme Court, reversing the Zoning Board of Appeals denial of a zoning variance for Pontillo’s 8-foot tall fence.
Feb. 7, 2016, letter from Gene Sinclair, code enforcement officer, to James Pontillo. Sinclair expresses concern that the apartments in the building are occupied: “If in fact this is true and the building is in the same condition that this office was allowed entry to previously, this would be in violation of fire and life safety codes.” Sinclair
March 22, 2016, notice and order to remedy to James Pontillo, asserting that there has been construction and alterations without permits.
April 21, 2016, Stafford Town Judge Robert A . Penepent signed a search warrant authorizing Gene Sinclair and Lester Mullen to inspect the property, including the interior.
June 24, 2016, letter from Richard B. Henry, with Clark Patterson Lee, a consulting firm, to Lester Mullen, code enforcement officer. The letter advises the town to pursue evacuation of the building due to the threat to the safety of the occupants. CPL had previously inspected the building, which “revealed new electric, plumbing, gas-fired furnaces, and questionable fire separations.” Pontillo’s failure to provide an engineering report and obtain a building permit “puts the tenants at risk since it is unknown whether the new systems are installed property.” The letter notes Pontilllo appeared to be continuing work on the building despite a “stop work” order. “Due to the seriousness of this exposure, we strongly recommend that this matter be turned over to your attorney for immediate action. Mr. Pontillo should provide a set of plans and specifications which address fire separation, egress, accessibility, interior finishes of the B and A2 occupancies, and the exterior finishes. He will also need to supply an electrical inspection certificate.”
Sept. 12, 2016, board minutes, Mr. Pontillo is accused of doing building/renovation work on his building without obtaining building permits. He has not, as requested at the Aug. 8 meeting, submitted engineering drawings. The board voted to refer the matter to the Genesee County Supreme Court to seek eviction of the tenants in the building and bar occupancy until a certificate of occupancy is obtained.
Nov. 7, 2016, letter from James Pontillo to James Clement, town supervisor. Pontillo claims that a court ruling a fine against him was to be terminated. The Sheriff’s Office withdrew $3,000 from his bank account. He states he’s made six Freedom of Information Law requests for documents and all have been denied. He states he continues to work on the building. “I continue to keep the property safe for my tenants,” Pontillo wrote. “Remember, no one on any of the inspections found any unsafe concerns that warrant evacuation of the property.”
Nov. 11, 2016, email from Kevin Earl, town attorney, to Robert Clement, town supervisor. Earl provides a timeline of events related to the fine against James Pontillo. He states a criminal action was initiated against Pontillo and Pontillo was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine of $2,500. Pontillo never appealed that conviction. In a separate action, Judge Mark J. Grisanti, Genesee County Supreme Court, overturned the ZBA determination about the fence. Earl said that Pontillo’s statement that Grisanti never ruled that the fine in the criminal case was terminated.
Jan. 4, 2017, Mark Boylan, recently appointed town attorney, taking over the case against James Pontillo, notes in an email to the town supervisor that Pontillo’s attorney, Peter Sorgi, raised an issue that there was no summons and complaint was filed on the new case against Pontillo. Boylan agreed and said that if there were a court appearance on the case, Sorgi would make a motion for dismissal and likely be successful. He suggests a meeting to resolve the issues pending with code compliance.
Feb. 6, 2017, an email from Town Attorney Mark Boylan to Peter Sorgi, attorney for James Pontillo, providing a summary of a Feb. 2 meeting. The goal of the meeting was to bring the building into compliance with building codes. “It was agreed that within the next 30 days, the attorneys will confer and agree on an independent structural engineer to inspect the building and create a ‘punch list’ of repairs/renovations/modifications that will be required to bring the building into compliance.” Pontillo agreed to retain a licensed engineer to draw up and stamp engineering plans to complete the punch list items. Once approved, he would receive the necessary building permits. He will have 12 months to bring the building up to compliance.
Feb. 28, 2017, an email from Mark Boylan, town attorney, and Peter Sorgi, Pontillo’s attorney, reminded Sorgi of the prior agreement and noted that there has been no progress on the agreement. “Despite their reluctance, my clients remain receptive to resolving this outside the courtroom, though I am constantly reminded by them they have been down this same road many times before and that judicial intervention may be the only way complete your client to comply with state law.”
March 30, 2017, email from Peter Sorgi to James Pontillo informing Pontillo that the town has dropped its lawsuit but the town will re-file if he doesn’t schedule an inspection soon.
May 17, 2017, email from Mark Boylan, town attorney, was sent to the code enforcement office, town supervisor, and town clerk. “Predictably, Mr Pontillo has failed to apply for building permits. He has also failed to submit any type of engineered drawing for the building.”
June 12, 2017, letter from Diane Matla, housing quality standards inspector for PathStone, to James Pontillo, providing Pontillo with a deficiency notice and that repairs must be made within 24 hours for a named tenant. “Section 8 apartments must meet HUD’s Housing Quality standards at all times. If the repairs are not made within 60 days, housing assistance payments will be stopped, and the tenant will be asked to move. There is only a 24-hour notice for landlords to correct deficiencies related to safety and heat.
June 16, 2017, order and notice of violation to James Pontillo to correct code deficiencies, including “building is clearly unsafe,” “building is neglected,” “building presents a threat to life and safety,” the building is unfit for habitation, and the building lacks sufficient fire resistance.
On July 17, 2017, James Pontillo applied for a building permit to replace the building's roof with a metal roof.
Aug. 10, 2017, the first "not to be occupied notice" was posted on the building.
Aug. 14, 2017, Board minutes, there are ongoing violations at 6177 Main Road. An unsafe building notice was posted. A letter from the town attorney to James Pontillo outlining the building’s alleged deficiencies has been drafted. The email discusses the cost of demolition. The county will “temporarily” reimburse the town for expenses. If the property is sold at a tax lien auction, the town won't need to pay back those costs if the amount covers the cost of taxes in arrears plus expenses. But if the auction price is less than the taxes owed, the town would need to repay the cost of demolition. During a legal proceeding with the county, Pontillo was required to submit tax returns, which indicated he had “only $18,000 in income.” Boylan states, “It appears Mr. Pontillo may not have the money to defend himself in a lawsuit nor will he have any money to bring his building into compliance.” Boylan tells the town not to expect to recover costs if it does anything to remediate the code issues. The longshot solution is to convince Pontillo to deed the property to the town, then the town could demolish or make improvements in the hopes of selling the property at a price sufficient to cover the costs. He said he had no idea what the costs would be and if environmental remediation might be required if the town were to remove the building.
Aug. 28, 2017, letter from James Pontillo to Gene Sinclair, responding to a violation notice received Aug. 17. The letter references a prior violation notice and a meeting between the two. He thanked Sinclair for informing him of the garbage dumping complaints. He lists seven tasks he is undertaking, from removing back steps, detaching the back deck, removing doors to the back entrance of the basement and replacing them with block, replacing the story staircase landing, blocking front steps with railing, completing the back of building wrap as well as the east side. He also mentioned getting help with resolving an access issue with the neighboring property owner. Further, he said on July 14, he stopped in to see Sinclair, and Sinclair said he would stop by the following week for an inspection, but Pontillo said he never got any followup information. He said he was surprised that the building was placarded “not to be occupied” on Aug. 10. He says Sinclair did not make the proper notifications.
Oct. 10, 2017, letter from James Pontillo to Gene Sinclair. Pontillo questions whether Sinclair has made a real inspection and what are his real concerns. He states hell ocntinue to work on the building “despite your barrage of complaints.”
June 7, 2018, an order was issued to James Pontillo to correct code violations, including a non-weather-proof roof, a removed fire escape, a non-weather-proof coating on the building, unsecured building coverings, and no ice/snow breakers on the roof.
July 11, 2018, letter from Gene Sinclair, code enforcement officer, to James Pontillo, noting that various projects to remediate code issues at the building “have been going on for at least five years,” adding that “the building has become an eyesore in the middle of the hamlet.” He asks Pontillo to respond soon in writing with his intentions and time frame for completing the projects.
July 16, 2018, letter from Gene Sinclair, code enforcement, to James Pontillo. The permit for the roof replacement has expired, the roof hasn’t been completed and Pontillo must apply for a new permit.
Jan. 4, 2019, letter from code enforcement officers Gene Sinclair and Gerry Wood proposing a meeting to review areas of concern with code compliance.
April 29, 2019, an order to remedy was issued to James Pontillo, giving him 30 days, citing the condition of the roof, no demonstration of a working fire alarm system, no fire separation, and open lath on walls, concluding the building is unsafe, neglected, and presents a threat to life and safety.
May 9, 2018, an “Order and Notice of Violation” was sent to James Pontillo for the non-weather-proof roof, non-weather-proof coating on the building, removed fire escape, unsecured building coverings, no ice/snow breakers on the roof, and no security meters attached to the building.
Aug. 15, 2019, Gene Sinclair, code enforcement, filed a complaint against James Pontillo, stating that Pontillo has refused to comply with a 30-day demand to remediate violations on the property.
Aug 15, 2019: James Pontillo was issued an appearance ticket for alleged failure to remediate code violations. He was ordered to appear in Stafford Town Court on October 1.
Jan. 8, 2020, Email from Town Attorney Mark Boylan confirming a conversation with Peter Sorgi, the attorney for James Pontillo, that Pontillo will provide a plan to remedy violations on the property before the February court appearance, that he will then provide architectural/engineered drawings, a formal plan for the Landmark Society or other historic preservation entity to finance the project within 60 days, and that the plans will be submitted to the Stafford Planning Board for approval.
Jan. 9, 2020, email from Mark Boylan to Stafford Code Enforcement about his conversation with Peter Sorgi. He said Sorgi “recognizes he has almost no defenses to the complaints.”
Nov. 9, 2020, notice of unpaid taxes and the potential for foreclosure.
Aug. 10, 2021, letter from James Pontillo to Gerry Wood, code enforcement officer, asking that the town provide a reason as to why the building is “considered to be dangerous and unsafe.” He promised to address “overgrowth” and that the building inside and out will be cleared of debris.
June 12, 2023, Board minutes. James Pontillo complains that he has wrapped the building three or four times and he claims that the wrapping has been torn down and that sections of the fence has been removed or damaged. He had other complaints but stated he wants to cooperate and get things done and resolved amiably.
July 19, 2023, a Stafford business owner filed a complaint about bird feces. He complained that the condition of the building allowed “1000s” of birds to live inside. “The amount of feces is unbelievable. It is a health hazard … the building has been in disrepair for ten years. Please have the building repaired or demolished.”
Photo taken this week of the former Odd Fellows Hall, 6177 Main Road, in Stafford. Photo by Howard Owens.
James Pontillo, owner of the former Odd Fellows Hall in Stafford, located at 6177 Main Road, in the middle of the hamlet, is under court order to produce architectural plans drawn up by an engineer for renovations of the building along with proof of the financial means to complete the project.
The court order, signed by Judge Diane Y. Devlin, Genesee County Supreme Court, is similar to multiple demands made by officials in the town of Stafford over the past decade.
James Pontillo, file photo from July. Photo by Howard Owens.
The deadline for Pontillo to produced plans was Oct. 3, but the court appearance scheduled that day was canceled because one of the attorneys in the case couldn't appear. It's unknown if he met that deadline. He has until Oct. 17 to provide proof that he can afford to complete the project.
The Odd Fellows Hall was built in 1890. It is 5,978 square feet. Pontillo acquired it at auction for $40,000 from Terry Platt in December 2010.
Since then, Pontillo has seemingly struggled to remodel and restore the building. He's often pointed to the town of Stafford officials as obstructionists. Town officials have prodded him repeatedly over the past decade to submit remodeling plans in order to obtain building permits and to bring the building up to code. There have also been questions about his financial ability to complete any effort to bring the building up to code.
At times, Pontillo has also complained that the owners of a neighboring property also hinder his ability to complete exterior work requested by the town.
As early as December 2010, town officials noted Pontillo's lack of follow-through on presenting plans to the town, according to public records obtained by The Batavian through a Freedom of Information Law request filed with the town.
On at least four occasions, code enforcement officers have issued notices of code violations with orders to correct those violations. Pontillo's efforts to comply with those orders often seem to be incomplete.
There have been issues with the roof, the exterior covering of the building, electrical boxes, and fire protection measures.
In 2017, code enforcement officers determined the building had numerous deficiencies making the building "clearly unsafe,” that it was "neglected,” that it presented a "threat to life and safety,” and it was unfit for habitation.
That was until at least June 2017, when an inspector from Pathstone informed Pontillo that an apartment did not meet HUD quality standards and would not be eligible for Section 8 assistance if the deficiencies were not cured within 24 hours.
On Aug. 10, 2017, the building was posted with a "not to be occupied" placard.
On at least three occasions, Pontillo was informed by the town that he needed to submit renovation plans completed by a licensed engineer in order to receive a building permit.
At a town board meeting on Sept. 12, 2016, town officials complained that Pontillo was doing work in the building without obtaining the proper permits.
Odd Fellows Hall in July, the day a group of volunteers joined James Pontillo and his wife in clearning up the property. Photo by Howard Owens.
After obtaining the building, Pontillo seemed to have lofty plans for it. In 2016, he told The Batavian he was planning to completely restore the building and open a quality pizza restaurant. To that end, he had already installed large pizza ovens along with other kitchen equipment. He also had ambitious plans to remodel the upstairs apartments.
Those plans have seemed to go nowhere and the building has fallen further into disrepair.
In July, the town filed a lawsuit against Pontillo. The proposed order submitted by attorney David Roach, representing Stafford, was for Pontillo to provide proof he can afford to complete work in the building and provide documents on the scope of the project.
Devlin's order, filed on Sept. 5, is more specific.
By Oct. 3, Pontillo was ordered to "provide to Plaintiff the scope of the project (project objectives; project schedule; and project budget for construction work on the building located at 6177 E. Main Road, Stafford, New York) as prepared by Matthew Hume or another licensed architect or professional engineer."
By Oct. 17, Pontillo was ordered to "provide to Plaintiff documented proof that defendant has the financial resources (e.g line of credit statement; loan approval statement; financial account statement) to complete the scope of the project."
All parties are scheduled for their next court appearance on Oct. 17.
It's unclear what will happen if Pontillo doesn't comply with the court order.
In a memo to the Stafford town board on Aug. 17, then-town attorney Mark Boylan intimated that the town could be on the hook for a significant expense to either bring the building up to code or demolish it. Those costs might not be recovered at auction. Such an auction could only take place if Pontillo fell sufficiently behind in taxes for the county to foreclose on the property or if he deeded the property -- for free -- to the town. The cost of demolition could be significant if any environmental hazards were discovered on the property.
Photo taken this week of the former Odd Fellows Hall, 6177 Main Road, in Stafford. Photo by Howard Owens.
James Pontillo and his wife Laura came home from vacation on Friday and found a notice on the old Odd Fellow's Hall in Stafford with a "Do Not Occupy" notice on the doors.
The doors had also been broken open.
He called the Sheriff's Office, and the arrival of deputies drew the attention of Stafford residents.
It's Pontillo's understanding that the town determined the building was abandoned and, therefore, condemned. He said he received no prior notice of an issue.
On Friday, a small band of Stafford residents volunteered to clean up the outside of the historic building.
"I was just kind of overwhelmed that some of the residents came up to see what's going on because the sheriffs were here because we had a break-in," Pontillo said. "They stopped and had a little talk. Before I knew it, they had put together a little work detail to come out and help me with the outside."
Asked about the status of the building, Pontillo said, "That's a good question. Because they're stating that the building has been abandoned. So I'm not sure. I haven't gotten a call from the inspection department. I haven't gotten a call from anybody, nor have any letters, regular mail, or emails. They have that information. So it's kind of interesting that they would say it's abandoned without maybe contacting me first to get some insight on the paperwork; it says that it was inspected. But I don't know how it was inspected when they don't have access. But all the doors were broken open. I'm not saying that they did it. So it's kind of interesting."
On Sunday afternoon, The Batavian emailed a series of questions about the notice and what Pontillo said about it to Supervisor Robert Clement and The Batavian has yet to receive a response.
There are apartments on the second floor of the building, and Pontillo said it's been a "few years" since his tenants were "illegally" (his word) evicted by town inspectors.
Pontillo said the town keeps frustrating his attempts to restore the building. He said when he gets a building permit, such as for a new fence or new roof, just as the work nears completion, he gets a stop work order.
He said he has the financial ability to complete the project if the town "would let me continue work."
Pontillo purchased the property at auction in 2010 for $40,000. The assessed value is $44,000. Pontillo said if he could complete the project, the assessed value would increase, meaning more revenue for the town.
"Look at all the money that was spent on attorney fees," Pontillo said. "They haven't really put that out there. But let's say it's $30,000 or $50,000. Well, if you want to waste that kind of money, they could have put half of that towards a fundraiser or something to fix the building up or donate to the historical society or something else. I mean, it's very foolish not to look at the revenue lost by not having a restaurant downstairs or a hairstyling shop; that's what we were getting ready to put on the other side. And having tenants upstairs. That's a lot of revenue from people who would be spending their money here."
The Town of Stafford contracted with an engineer to inspect the old Odd Fellows Building this morning and owner James Pontillo feared the goal of the inspection was to find a reason to condemn the building.
If that was the goal, that wasn't the result.
Engineer Dennis Halstead looked over nearly every inch of the building and told Pontillo at the end that he didn't see evidence of slipshod work.
Pontillo has been working on a restoration project with the building since he assumed ownership in 2010. It's been a lot of work, and there is a lot of work still to do, and Pontillo feels like the town has tried to impede his progress every step of the way.
Last year, Pontillo and the town fought over a fence he built along his western property line. The case eventually went to court and Pontillo prevailed.
Today's tour started in the first-floor business units, where once, most recently, there was a tattoo parlor, and the former location of the Stafford Trading Post (which, back in the day, was the town's post office, general store and armory.
Pontillo explained that he has installed a firewall around the kitchen, where one didn't exist before.
In the basement, Halstead looked at the electrical paneling, which has all been replaced, and the new heating units, which Halstead said looked like good, quality work.
The third-floor apartments all looked clean and well maintained, with a new heating system. Pontillo improved the ingress/egress to one of the apartments by removing a portion of the stage riser that partially blocked the entrance, a remnant of the Odd Fellows Temple days.
That apartment has a raised floor (the old stage) for its living room.
The third apartment is a studio and Pontillo has nearly completed refurbishing it, with new walls, new door frames, new kitchenette and a completely renovated bathroom.
In this room, one of the town inspector's, Gene Sinclair, told a reporter that it looked like Pontillo was doing a good job with the renovations.
"If only he would get permits for his work first," he said.
When told about the remark later, Pontillo chuckled and said, "If only it were that easy."
At the end of the tour, Halstead told Pontillo some of what would be in his report. Even though the building has had businesses, including a food business, on the first floor, and apartments on the second floor, for generations, it still needs some fire-code-related improvements. Either there needs to be a two-hour burn barrier between the second and third floors or Pontillo needs to install sprinklers, perhaps only over the kitchen part.
Pontillo said he intends to install sprinklers in the stairwell leading to the second-floor apartments, as well (if he does, he may no longer need the fire escape on the west side of the building).
There are no other major issues that immediately stand out, Halstead said, but his report will be a series of recommendations with options for Pontillo to consider. He recommended Pontillo go over that with his engineer and that the engineer draw up a plan, put his seal on it, and supply it to the town. Halstead said he would also be happy to talk with Pontillo's engineer.
The Stafford Zoning Board of Appeals decision that denied James Pontillo a variance for a fence behind the former Odd Fellows Hall, was reversed in state Supreme Court on Friday.
The Hon. Mark J. Grisanti said the ZBA’s September decision was “arbitrary and capricious.”
Grisanti’s decision followed an hour-long hearing at the Genesee County Courthouse.
Pontillo’s attorney, Peter J. Sorgi, said he was gratified by the judge’s decision.
“But I’m incredibly frustrated that it has taken this much time and money,” Sorgi said. “The money he spent on this should have been put into that building.
“The town would have a really nice building instead of paying lawyers and doing all this nonsense,” he added.
The ruling apparently ends a two-year tussle over the fence.
Pontillo bought the historic building at 6177 Main Road in 2010. In 2013, he built a wood fence along the west property line behind the building.
The town issued a stop-work order, and the matter ended up in court. A town judge ordered the fence removed, and that decision was upheld on appeal by Superior Court Judge Robert C. Noonan.
Pontillo’s request for an area variance was denied by the town ZBA on Sept. 15.
On Friday, Grisanti said the ZBA considered the harm the fence would cause. But there is no evidence the board weighed that harm against the benefits to Pontillo, he said.
“(The decision) seems to be a violation, in a sense of their own procedure,” Grisanti said.
The town could appeal the decision. Sorgi said an appeal would cost “a minimum of $10,000” and take a year to reach a courtroom.
“If they want to throw more money away on this, they have that right,” Sorgi said.
Town Attorney Kevin Earl said he would not recommend an appeal.
“I believe this will end it,” Earl said. “It’s up to the judge to make a determination. He made it, and we have to live with it.”
Pontillo was joined in court by about a half-dozen friends and supporters. The group gathered afterward at Coffee Culture.
Pontillo wasn’t in a celebratory mood.
“In a way, they won,” he said.
The legal case has prevented him from finishing work on the fence, a job that will now not resume until the spring.
Also postponed, was work on the building’s exterior, lot paving and roof replacement.
“Because of this delay I really had no desire to do anything more with the building until I saw that I could prevail and move forward with the process,” Pontillo said.
Still, he said, he feels no regret about buying the building.
“I still believe there’s potential there,” Pontillo said. “And I still believe I get good support from the community.”
The difference between the six-foot limit on a fence in the Town of Stafford and the actual height -- whatever it is -- of the fence James Pontillo built on his property is enough to reduce the sunlight falling on the neighboring building, according to Stafford's Zoning Board of Appeals.
That's based on science, said Chairwoman Crista Boldt.
Sort of.
"If we had a scientist come in and measure the amount of daylight that's given to that property next door it would make a difference, just like people in Wyoming when they measured when they put wind towers in Warsaw and they studied how the flicker effect would affect the house, because of the rotation of the Earth and the sun orbiting the Earth it would affect it," Boldt said, "the amount of light."
The reduction of light -- however much that might scientifically be -- would create an "undesirable change," according to ZBA board members.
For that, and other reasons we'll get to, the ZBA voted unanimously to deny Pontillo an area variance for his fence.
An area variance is a tool in New York code enforcement guidelines that gives local officials the ability to allow property owners to make physical changes to structures and property that might otherwise be prohibited by law.
There are five criteria zoning boards use when deciding whether to grant an area variance.
They are:
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.
In this case, the ZBA found the extra foot, two feet or three feet -- depending on who is doing the measuring and where -- would mean less light would reach the neighboring property.
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance.
Yes, the board found Pontillo could build a six-foot-high fence. That would block people in cars and most people standing from seeing over the fence. As for Pontillo's stated goal of building a deck on the back of his building, which is part of the historic Four Corners District, well, Pontillo hasn't even applied for a permit for it, so Boldt indicated she wasn't interested in considering it as a criterion on this point.
Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
As a matter of measurement then -- depending, again, on who is doing the measuring and where -- the extra height, as a matter of percentages, is from 15 to 30 feet higher than the six-foot fence Pontillo could build without a variance.
Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
James Balonek piped up on this one and said yes, because of the sunlight and the airflow.
The reason for denial Boldt wrote down on the ZBA's form was because granting a variance could impact future decisions of the board and reduce the ability of the code enforcement officer to enforce the law.
Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
Boldt read the objection and immediately said it was because Pontillo built the fence. Then she wanted to know from the code enforcement officers when they issued a stop-work order to Pontillo. That led to a discussion with Pontillo and his attorney about the timeline of events.
According to attorney Peter J. Sorgi, Pontillo sought a variance for a fence, was denied, decided to build a different fence and was told by town officials that a fence of six feet or less didn't require approval or permits, so that's what Pontillo set out to build. When the fence, which is in plain view of Town Hall, was nearly complete, Pontillo received a stop-work order and immediately complied.
That's a set of facts nobody in the room explicitly disputed.
Boldt wrote on the ZBA form that the difficulty was self-created.
When Boldt first started going through the criteria, Balonek raised the first objection and said the requested variance would create an undesirable change because it goes against code.
Sorgi pointed out, "that's why you have variances." By that definition, he said, no variance would ever be granted.
Boldt told Sorgi, "We've been trained that it's extremely hard to get a variance."
Pop quiz: You're a code enforcement officer and your job is to measure a fence to see if it is less than six feet high and therefore conforms to the local building code. Do you measure from the side of the fence of the property owner who built the fence, or do you measure from the other side?
In Stafford, Code Enforcement Officer Lester Mullen measured from the non-owner side. That was his solution to a question that apparently has no correct answer under existing town law, but has unleashed a protracted legal battle that has consumed at least $10,000 of taxpayer money and caused James Pontillo to shell out nearly $10,000 in attorneys fees.
The two adjoining properties are different grades, accounting for a variance in fence height from one side to the other.
The issue of the fence has morphed into a soap opera of sorts and still has no resolution; though, it was hashed out at great length at a public hearing before the zoning board of appeals on Monday night.
Peter J. Sorgi, the attorney for Pontillo, explained it this way: His client decided to build a fence two years ago between his property, the ancient and former Odd Fellows Hall on Stafford's historic four corners at Main Road and Morganville Road, and the property to the west, where Tom Englerth erected a steel-roofed building that is currently leased by the Stafford Trading Post and a hair salon.
The feud between Pontillo and Englerth is well documented. It's genesis seems to be Pontillo's successful bid to buy the property at 6177 Main Road in 2010 for $40,700. His purchase of the building was applauded by members of the Stafford Historical Society and Pontillo promised to clean it up, restore it and return it to a useful commercial and residential property. There was concern at the time that Englerth wanted to move or raze the building and open a gas station at the location.
Over the years, there have been numerous police calls to the location as Pontillo and Englerth have scrapped over access to Englerth's property for high lifts for roof workers, snow removal, garbage dumping and property lines.
The fence issue wound up in court, and a Stafford judge ordered the fence removed. On appeal, Robert C. Noonan, in his capacity as Superior Court judge, upheld the ruling that the fence was out of compliance with local ordinance -- supporting Mullen's measurements -- but reversed the lower court's order that the fence be removed.
Pontillo was ordered to pay a $2,500 fine, but the fence still stands and Pontillo is seeking an area variance for an eight-foot-tall fence, though he unofficially contends the fence, measured on his side of the property line, is only six feet tall.
The meeting Monday night can only be described as contentious, with Pontillo already seeming to have scored some demerits with Crista Boldt, chairwoman of the ZBA, for blaming the town at last week's County Planning Board meeting for his application lacking surveys, plans and photos. Pontillo claimed to have provided those items to the town and was surprised the town hadn't passed along those exhibits.
"I don't want untrue things getting said when you go to other boards," Boldt said. "It reflects poorly on the town."
Sorgi explained Pontillo's remarks to the county as a misunderstanding. The Town of Stafford doesn't require those exhibits, but the county board wanted to review those details. Pontillo, he said, had at one time or another provided the town with all of those materials, but not part of this specific application, because the town didn't require those items be attached to the application.
Sorgi then provided a brief history lesson on the local planning process, which only began in New York about 100 years ago.
There are court cases that outline the role of a zoning board, he said, which is to act as a safety valve to help interpret zoning ordinances. It's role in considering a variance was to balance the benefits to the property owner against the health, safety and welfare of the local community.
James Pontillo
He provided, from NYS code, the five criteria the board must consider and explained how all five criteria weigh in favor of his client.
The benefits Pontillo seeks, Sorgi said, is to hide what he described as an unsightly mess next door, from exposed dumpsters to an unkempt back lawn and junk strewn about (when we look at the property after the meeting, the lawn had been cut within the past two weeks and there were only a few loose items in the yard).
Town Attorney Kevin Earl said a six-foot fence accomplishes the same goal, but Sorgi said not if Pontillo does as planned and builds a back deck on the property, which will be used for dining and drinking.
The fence also prevents snow from being piled up against the old building and makes use of the westside fire escape safer.
The board must consider, Sorgi said, whether the change hurts the character of the neighborhood or is a detriment to nearby properties. He said the fence does no harm and with the 80-foot flower box Pontillo has installed, actually enhances the neighborhood.
The board must consider whether the applicant has a feasible alternative, and Sorgi said there is none.
The request for a variance must be substantial, according to state law, and since a court has ruled the fence is too high, the variance is necessary to achieve Pontillo's desired benefits.
The board must consider whether the variance, if granted, will adversely impact the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
The answer, Sorgi, said is no.
Finally, the board must consider whether the need for the variance is the result of an issue self-created by the applicant. It wasn't, Sorgi said, because the town doesn't require any sort of permit for a six-foot-high fence and since his client thought, by his own measurements, he was building a six-foot-high fence, there was no official method to confirm with the town that the fence was within the required height. The town didn't object to the fence, Sorgi said, until it was nearly completed.
The only speakers at the public hearing, five altogether and all local residents, each supported Pontillo's variance request.
During the course of the presentation, there were tense moments.
Sorgi took issue with Mullen declining to speak on the record, in front of the press and public, about his position on the variance request. Mullen specifically cited the presence of news media as his reason for not speaking.
When Sorgi left out "physical" to go with "environmental" on the criteria for the board to consider, Boldt called him on it.
Sorgi raised the issue of a fence on the other side of Englerth's property, built by Englerth, that exceeds the six-foot height limit, but Englerth is apparently not facing the same level of scrutiny over that fence, Sorgi said, as his client.
Pontillo accused Englerth of trying to fudge the property line before his fence was built by moving a surveyor's stake at the back of the property by as much as six feet. That dispute led to an accusation of trespassing by Englerth and one of the multiple visits by troopers to mitigate tensions over the past couple of years.
Sorgi tossed a couple of barbs Attorney Earl's way, expressing disdain that Earl threatened to have Pontillo arrested if he didn't take the fence down. Earl argued that isn't exactly what he said, that he merely mentioned that a consequence of failure to abide by zoning law could result in a jail sentence, which he has sought before in other jurisdictions, where he has also served as a municipal attorney, for similar violations. It's not an abnormal response to zoning violations by municipal attorneys.
Sorgi also peppered Earl, whom he accused of chasing billable hours, with questions about why he was even at the meeting: Was he there as a private citizen or as the town's attorney? Earl said Town Supervisor Robert Clement asked him to be there, and Sorgi said that Clement, under state law, didn't have the authority to ask Earl to represent the town board at the meeting, that it took a vote of the board for such an action.
As a result of the meeting, both attorneys are now on record on two key points:
Earl said "nobody is trying to get the fence taken down." The town officially has no position on how the ZBA should vote on the variance request.
Sorgi said his client is willing to stipulate for the sake of the variance application that the fence is eight feet tall.
In the midst of this rancor, Sorgi reminded the ZBA that its job was to weigh the evidence without consideration for personalities or past history.
"This isn't about James Pontillo or whether you like him or whether you like this neighbor more than that neighbor," Sorgi said. "This is about whether the request benefits the applicant without doing harm to the health, safety and welfare of the community. That's it. Whether you like somebody isn't the question. It's a simple test."
The ZBA is scheduled to vote on the application for a variance at its September meeting.
