The council voted unanimously to uphold Code Enforcement Officer Glenn Christner’s order to demolish the structure, which is behind the Dunkirk Motel. The building’s owners appealed Christner’s decision, earning them a Common Council hearing held at Tuesday’s meeting.

A taste of the council’s mood toward the long-closed, dilapidated former motel came early in the meeting. City Attorney Elliott Raimondo said the owner’s lawyer wouldn’t be there until 6 p.m. and suggested holding back on the hearing until then. Multiple “Nos” echoed back from the council.

“The hearing’s now,” Councilor James Stoyle said. Except, it wasn’t: the council eventually did vote, 3-2, for a 10-minute recess to delay the hearing until 6 p.m. Stoyle and Abby Yerico voted against it, while Natalie Luczkowiak, Nancy Nichols and Nick Weiser moved to allow it.

The council did its public comments session first, which included words from Dunkirk Motel neighbor Patricia Mleczko. She said she was speaking for other residents of the neighborhood.

Glenn Christner's order to demolish a vacant building behind the Dunkirk Motel was upheld by the Common Council.

“I think one of our main concerns is, we have an extremely elderly neighborhood. These people would not know what to do if something arose on their property. Many of them are widows,” she said.

Evidently referring to Dunkirk Motel residents, she continued, “These people live in a 2 by 4 box. They are not managed with their medicine, they have no means for food. I know they can’t help themselves, they do need help. We just feel that in a residential neighborhood without supervision, is not the best place.”

Christner emphasized that the property up for a vote Tuesday was not the Dunkirk Motel, but a separately owned entity.

“The building has been vacant, as far as we can tell, since 1995 or ’96,” he said. “In January, the owners were issued with a remove or repair order. They were given time to hire a design professional and consult with an attorney. They made a presentation to the Zoning Board of Appeals and they were denied.”

He said the property owners got a “demolish or remove” order in July. Christner said it met the state fire code’s definition of an unsafe structure, emphasizing the passage, “A vacant structure that is not secured against unauthorized entry… shall be deemed unsafe.”

He added the building had no fire alarms and a blighted exterior. “It is both unsafe and an unattractive nuisance,” he concluded.

Thomas Zawadzki, of Rugero Management of Cheektowaga, spoke on behalf of the property owners, who did not appear at the podium. He said he was helping oversee plans to renovate the structure.

“The structure is sound. We have put together a budget to rehab the back buildings,” he said, offering posters showing plans. He said the plumbing was “in decent working order,” yet acknowledged that the copper fittings were vandalized.

“I just don’t understand, after it’s been vacant for decades, why, when the order was presented, all of a sudden, you have interest,” Luczkowiak commented.

Zawadzki replied, “We’re going through expenses with architects. We’re doing total remodeling – we’ve spent money on engineers, architects, designers, to bring the hotel back.”

Ryan McCann, attorney for the property owners, said, “First and foremost, I want to identify the elephant in the room. Frankly, I think the primary issue we have here is the community, and perhaps some members of the Common Council, may not be a fan of my client’s customers. I’m here to tell you that gender, race, social status (are) completely irrelevant to the council… as it pertains to this matter.”

McCann said two of three parcels that the ex-motel sits on were rezoned to residential in 2022. He thinks his clients have a nonconforming use as a hotel.

McCann pushed back on Christner’s assessment that the property is abandoned. “The law specifically states there has to be evidence of an intent to abandon use of the property, the mere discontinuance of a nonconforming use is insufficient as a matter of law… They’ve used all of these properties for purposes of their business, and the Common Council should allow them to continue this business for the betterment of the community.”

As for the condition of the property, McCann said, “My clients have tried, and are committed to spending money to make these improvements, but because of these constant roadblocks, they are unable to move forward with these plans.”

Council members brought up the Dunkirk Motel. Yerico said it was not being operated as a motel, but “as a halfway house.”

Nichols said, “There are permanent residents that are there. It doesn’t matter what nature they are, what religion, what classification, they are permanent. If you call to ask for a room for two nights, there is none available.”

“I’d like to see a guest register,” growled a leather-lung in the audience.

McCann said that what went on at the Dunkirk Motel is not relevant to the rear lots. Nichols replied, “I disagree with you. If that’s happening now in the front portion of that motel … what’s to say it’s just a big reversion of the front side on the back side.”

Luczkowiak said, “I don’t believe they’re in good faith with their word in changing and making it look nice.”

Yerico then moved to uphold the demolition order, and the council did so.