Town of Clarence Planning Board·August 19, 2026
Two plazas enter review · A contractor builds its own face · A garage, a gate and a one-year clock · Six votes, no public comment
The Planning Board gave most of an hour Wednesday to one developer's plans for the town's north side, voting 6–0 twice to open coordinated environmental review on two more Mattina Development, LLC[*] projects along James Ryan Parkway — five buildings and roughly 35,520 square feet between them, including a coffee shop with a drive-through — barely nine hours after the Town Board referred both to this board at its 10 a.m. meeting. Neither was approved; both votes only start the clock, and Chairman Robert Sackett sent the applicants off to “hurry up and wait” while other agencies weigh in. The night's real approvals were quieter. Brawdy Construction[*] won concept plan approval, on 13 conditions, for an 11,939-square-foot office and shop/warehouse addition to its County Road headquarters — a building its designer described as the company's storefront for multimillion-dollar clients. And Woodview Construction & Homeview Properties[*] cleared site plan and architectural approval for a 960-square-foot garage at 8955 Sheridan Drive, plus a board recommendation for the one-year outside-storage permit that makes its screened, gated trailer lot legal. Six motions, six unanimous roll calls, and — across three separate invitations — not one member of the public stepped to the microphone.
Twice in the last twenty minutes of the meeting, the same three men walked to the microphone and made largely the same case. Mattina Development, LLC[*] already has one plaza approved and under construction on James Ryan Parkway[*]. Wednesday it asked the board to begin looking at the next two — and the pitch, delivered by attorney Ari Goldberg[*] of Barclay Damon[*], was essentially that the board had already reviewed all of this once. “Lessons have been learned from going through the first project,” he said, and the design, materials and architecture are “almost mimic of what's across the street” — down to the cupola detail he called “that Clarence Cupola now that's seen everywhere.”[1]
Item 3 is a 3.36-acre proposed lot at the southwest corner of County Road and James Ryan Parkway: two one-story multi-tenant buildings, roughly 8,000 and 10,900 square feet, the larger one wrapped by a drive-through. Item 4, across the street on the east side of the parkway, is a 1.9-acre parcel holding a 5,100-square-foot commercial building out front and two flex warehouse buildings of 5,760 square feet each behind it. Both items carry the same tax parcel number, SBL 44.00-1-55[*]; the sub-lots have not been split off yet.[1][2]
Board member Gregory Todaro[*] had the floor for both and opened by saying he liked what he saw — there is, he noted, “really no similar types of operations… north of the center of town.” Then he spent half an hour on the details. The drive-through is a coffee shop taking about a fifth of the 10,900-square-foot building, with a 2,000-square-foot cafe footprint and room to stack 12 cars; developer Joe Mattina[*] is also chasing a deli, a tire store, dry cleaners and, in his words, “mom and pop places.” Todaro[*] asked for trip-generation numbers before concept review, noting that coffee drive-throughs have been “a hot topic throughout the town.” He asked how the order speaker would sound to the nearest homes, where employees would park, who maintains the stormwater (Mattina, for all three parcels), where the deliveries go (box trucks, mostly before 5 p.m., not tractor-trailers, and the plaza is deliberately marketed to tenants who don't need them), and where the mechanicals sit (on the ground, behind the buildings, fenced or planted out).[1]
On Item 4, the interesting word was flex. Asked what a flex warehouse actually holds, Mattina[*] answered plainly: contractors' garages — saws and equipment, heated, with a bathroom, rented for business or personal use. “It depends how much junk they got.” He said those units meet the parking requirement on their own, and that he would consider combining bays for a tenant who wanted more room.[1]
The board pushed back in two places. Chairman Sackett told the applicants that both plans need site data tables — setbacks, yards, parking required versus provided, drive-through stacking — because, as he put it, “it's hard for us to know how much parking you actually need.” (The tables exist, the team said; they simply weren't on the boards displayed.) And when Mattina[*] mentioned a two-tone metal look for the flex garages, Sackett cut in with a number: in the industrial zone, “there's code, and the number 40% comes to play.” Even for the garages. He advised them to read the material rules before the architecture round.[1]
Todaro[*] also asked how the three parcels would be built out, and got an answer the board plainly recognized: first building up, first building rented, then the next. “I hear from you you're letting the market dictate your phasing,” he said — three times, as a failing microphone ate the first two. Yeah, said Mattina[*]. The board asked for a written phasing plan anyway.[1]
Both motions — accept the Part 1 Environmental Assessment Form, seek lead agency status, commence a coordinated review — passed 6–0. No one from the public spoke on either project. Sackett's closing instruction was the line of the night: work on project one, “we're gonna hurry up and wait on 2 and 3 to see what we find from the agencies.”[1]
Nothing was approved on Items 3 and 4. The board did the first procedural thing it can do: accept the applicant's Part 1 Environmental Assessment Form, ask to be lead agency, and start a coordinated review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
In plain terms: one agency has to own the environmental review, and every other agency with a say — the county, the DOT, the sewer authority — gets notified and gets a window to respond. Only after that does the board reach a SEQR finding, then concept plan approval, then development plan approval, then the building department.
That waiting period is exactly what the chairman meant by “hurry up and wait.” The next time these projects appear on an agenda, the board asked for one addition: color architectural drawings.
Item 3 parks fewer cars than the code asks for. Stormwater and buildable area squeezed the lot, the design team said, and they will need relief — along with the same front-setback and parking-in-front variances granted on the first plaza.
A reader who has followed this board could be forgiven for assuming that means a trip to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It does not. Asked directly, the answer was that this one stays here: “the power to grant that's within the planning board.” It simply hasn't been granted yet — “it won't happen today, but it'll happen at future meetings.”
One thing does leave the building: the drive-through. That, the chairman said, goes to the Town Board.
One piece of context the board did not have to supply, because it came up that morning: at the 10 a.m. Town Board meeting that referred both projects here, the supervisor warned the applicant's team that sewer capacity in that part of town is not guaranteed — a parallel line is being installed, could take a year or two, and “several very large projects” already approved are waiting on capacity from the Town of Amherst. Goldberg[*] answered that the uses proposed here are light enough that they might move faster. Nothing about Wednesday night's votes changes that queue.[2]
The only concept plan approved Wednesday belongs to Brawdy Construction[*], on four acres at 9795 County Road in the Industrial Business Park zone. The addition comes in two pieces: a two-story office of roughly 5,324 square feet in brick and metal, and a shop/warehouse of roughly 6,615 square feet in CMU block — 11,939 square feet in total.[1][2]
Board member Daniel Tytka[*] led, and his first concern was aesthetic. He called the existing building good-looking, with “nice curb appeal,” and wanted assurance the new work would match. Dan LaPietra[*] of Carmina Wood Morris Design[*] said the materials do match, with one addition — metal on the front, which he defended as high quality. “This is the face of their company where they bring clients, multimillion dollar projects,” he said. “It's got to look good.”[1]
What goes inside it is a growth story told in floor plan. Downstairs: bullpen space, project managers, and somewhere for field crews to plug in a laptop. Upstairs: the finance officer, the two partners, a conference room, and a balcony to present proposals from — plus a room for a “historic partner” who, LaPietra[*] said, is “not around as much as he was, but it's still partly his company.”[1]
The rest of the questioning was the standard sweep, and the answers were unusually short. Lighting: all building-mounted and downward-facing, dark-sky compliant, with decorative fixtures on the company logo and safety lighting on an egress stair — no new pole lights in the parking lot. Trees: the plan was revised the week before the meeting to cut the number of removals down to the ones blocking truck turning, with the landscape committee still ahead. Fencing: none proposed, and no security problems to date — possibly, LaPietra[*] offered, because there is so little light back there that no one knows the material is there. Dumpster: none, because construction debris stays on job sites and the prefabrication bay's waste stays in the bay.[1]
The board issued a SEQR[*] negative declaration on the unlisted action, then approved the concept plan on 13 conditions. Asked whether he had heard, understood and agreed to all 13, the applicant's representative said he had. Both votes 6–0. No public speakers. The chairman's send-off: “I think you might find yourselves going to the building department next.”[1]
The night's first item took nine minutes and produced two motions. Woodview Construction & Homeview Properties[*] asked for site plan and architectural approval of a detached accessory structure behind the professional office building it occupies on a 0.6-acre commercial lot at 8955 Sheridan Drive: a 24-by-40-foot garage — about 960 square feet — in vinyl siding with an asphalt shingle roof, plus a stone parking area behind it for trailers, screened and gated.[1][2]
Chris Santora[*] and Dante Santora[*] presented it themselves, in about ninety seconds: the garage, the stone pad, added landscaping along the driveway, a repaired fence, more trees and plants against the building “to block the view… from Sheridan Drive,” a gate at the stone entrance, a couple of parking spaces out front. Board member Keith Lukowski[*], who had the floor, had exactly one line of inquiry — lighting. Wall sconces on both sides, yes; nothing on the back of the garage; dusk to dawn. “That's really all I had for a question.”[1]
Lukowski[*] then read 12 conditions into the record, the usual template: engineering, building and fire sign-off before permits; outside-agency permits; the landscape committee's August 11, 2026 approval, with landscaping, fencing and gates maintained in perpetuity and replaced in kind; materials to match the principal structure, explicitly not the optional metal; drive and parking areas north of the garage paved, striped and maintained; dark-sky lighting shielded from neighbors and off within an hour of closing; screened and closed dumpster enclosures if any ever appear; no new businesses or operators without town review; sign review; and open space fees. The chairman ran the standard colloquy — “Did you hear all 12 conditions? … Did you understand…? … And do you agree…?” Yes, yes, yes. Approved 6–0.[1]
The second motion was a recommendation, not an approval: the board urged the Town Board to issue an outside-storage temporary conditional permit for the stone lot, on four conditions of its own — a term no longer than one year, dust control, storage limited to licensed vehicles and trailers and confined to the stone area, and the stone itself removed and the ground returned to lawn if the permit ever lapses. Also 6–0. The applicants can start on the garage immediately, the chairman told them: “we'll work you through the TCP process with the town board, but it won't hold you up.”[1]
Item 1 produced two votes that sound alike and are not.
The site plan and architectural approval is the Planning Board's own decision. It is final on this board's end; the applicants go straight to the building department.
The temporary conditional permit for outside storage is not this board's to give. The Planning Board is only the recommending body; the Town Board issues it, after its own process. That is why the permit carries a one-year initial term and a requirement to rip out the stone and re-seed if it expires — a TCP is permission to do something the zone doesn't ordinarily allow, granted on a clock, not a right that attaches to the land.
And a third procedural note, delivered in one sentence and easy to miss: the garage was deemed a Type II action, a category the state has already decided has no significant environmental impact. That is why this item, alone on the docket, needed no SEQR[*] review at all.
Six recorded motions plus adjournment, every one carried unanimously, 6–0, on roll calls read by Senior Clerk Typist Amy Major. Answering each roll call: Keith Lukowski[*], Daniel Tytka[*], Gregory Todaro[*], Wendy Salvati, Vice-Chair Richard Bigler and Chairman Robert Sackett. Members Jason Geasling[*] and Jason Lahti are not heard on the recording and are treated here as absent. No recusals.
Moved by Lukowski[*], seconded, issuing site plan and architectural approvals for a detached accessory structure per site plans received in the planning office July 11, July 28 and August 19, 2026, subject to 12 conditions: engineering, building and fire inspector requirements before any site-work or construction permit; outside-agency permits; the landscape committee's August 11, 2026 approval, including management of all landscaping in perpetuity, replacement in kind, and maintenance and replacement of all fencing and gates; construction per the labeled materials, excluding the optional metal, in industry-standard high-quality materials and rendered colors matching the principal structure; structure and site maintained as approved in perpetuity; drive and parking areas north of the structure paved, striped and maintained, with no parking outside designated areas; dark-sky compliant, shielded lighting no higher than the roof ridgeline, off within one hour of business hours except necessary security lighting; any future dumpsters or totes fully enclosed by town-approved screening and kept closed; future building or site modifications subject to town review; no additional businesses, operations or operators without town review and approval; permanent signage to the sign review committee and temporary signage to the planning office; and open space and other applicable fees.
Both applicants confirmed on the record that they heard, understood and agreed to all 12 conditions. On the question, the board recorded that the proposal was deemed a Type II action by the town and therefore required no further review or action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by Lukowski[*], seconded, recommending that the Town Board issue an outside-storage temporary conditional permit for the approved site plan at 8955 Sheridan Drive, on four conditions: an initial term no greater than one year; the stone parking area kept in a maintained condition that prevents excessive dust; the stone area removed and returned to lawn upon termination or expiration of the permit; and outside storage limited to licensed vehicles and trailers, and confined to the stone parking area.
The applicants again confirmed they had heard, understood and agreed to all four. The Planning Board is the recommending body only — the permit itself issues from the Town Board. The chair told the applicants the TCP process would not delay their building permits.
Moved by Tytka[*], seconded, pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law: accept the Part 1 Environmental Assessment Form as submitted, approve the Part 2 and Part 3 forms as prepared, and issue a negative declaration on the proposed addition at 9795 County Road. The unlisted action involves an office and shop/warehouse addition in the Industrial Business Park zone; after review of the submitted plans, documents, meeting minutes, reports, letters and environmental assessment forms, the board determined the action will not have a significant negative impact on the environment.
Moved by Tytka[*], seconded, approving the concept plan per the submitted plan by Carmina Wood Morris Design[*] dated April 7, 2026 with a final revision date of August 10, 2026, and the conceptual architectural drawings by Abstract Architecture[*] dated August 11, 2026, subject to 13 conditions: development plan review by the town including technical review by the engineering department; engineering, building and fire inspector requirements before any permit; outside-agency permits; landscape committee approval of a final landscape plan before development plan approval, with a maintenance plan keeping landscaping and fencing in perpetuity; enclosed and closed dumpster screening with garbage service per town code; review of a lighting plan before development plan approval, dark-sky compliant, shielded, nothing above 15 feet, off within one hour of business hours except security lighting, with all security lighting depicted; final building elevations with labeled material types and colors, in industry-standard high-quality materials; exterior mechanicals identified, detailed and shielded on future submittals; building maintained in perpetuity with deficiencies repaired or replaced as approved; parking and drive areas maintained, no parking outside designated areas, stone areas kept dust-free; no additional business operations or operators without application and town approval; permanent signage to the sign review committee and temporary signage to the office of planning and zoning; and open space and other applicable fees.
The applicant's representative confirmed on the record that he heard, understood and agreed to all 13 conditions.
Moved by Todaro[*], seconded, pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law: accept the Part 1 Environmental Assessment Form as submitted, seek lead agency status, and commence a coordinated review among involved and interested agencies on the proposed Mattina Development, LLC project at the southwest corner of County Road and James Ryan Parkway, SBL 44.00-1-55, in the Industrial Business Park zone. The unlisted action involves construction of a commercial plaza including a drive-through facility.
This starts environmental review; it approves nothing. The Town Board referred the project to this board at its 10:00 a.m. meeting the same day. Still ahead: agency comment, a SEQR finding, concept plan and architectural review, the parking and setback variances (which the board said rest with the Planning Board, not the Zoning Board of Appeals), and Town Board consideration of the drive-through.
Moved by Todaro[*], seconded, on the same Article 8 terms: accept the Part 1 Environmental Assessment Form, seek lead agency status, and commence a coordinated review among involved and interested agencies on the proposed Mattina Development, LLC project on the east side of James Ryan Parkway[*], SBL 44.00-1-55, in the Industrial Business Park zone. The unlisted action involves construction of a commercial and flex warehouse plaza.
The chairman's closing direction to the applicants: proceed with project one, which is already under construction, and wait on these two for the agencies to report back.
With no other business, the chairman took a motion to adjourn. So moved; adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
“Approval of Meeting Minutes” heads the published 7:00 p.m. agenda, but no such motion appears anywhere in the broadcast, which runs from the call to order through adjournment. It is listed here for completeness only; no vote is recorded.
This brief is built from the livestream of the 7:00 p.m. public meeting and the Town's official agenda for August 19, 2026. The Planning Board's 6:30 p.m. work session — which the agenda says covers State Environmental Quality Review Act items and a review of the agenda — is not broadcast, and is not reflected here except where its work surfaced in the public meeting. Where this brief describes the morning's Town Board referral of the two Mattina items, that material comes from the separately captured 10:00 a.m. Town Board meeting and its agenda, cited below.
The agenda governs proper nouns, and it corrected the audio on all four applicants. Item 1 is Woodview Construction & Homeview Properties (the broadcast rendered it “Wood View… and Home View”); Item 2 is Brawdy Construction (variously “Brody” and “broad construction” on the recording, including inside the motions); Items 3 and 4 are Mattina Development, LLC (“Matina”/“Martina”), and the tax parcel is SBL 44.00-1-55, not the “SPL” heard in both motions. Street names were validated against the Town's official street index: the road called “James Ryan Road” in the design testimony and “James Parkway” in the Item 4 motion is James Ryan Parkway in both agendas and is given that way throughout. The applicants' attorney also referred to the corridor as the “James Ryan Industrial Parkway”; that phrasing matches no street on the town's index and is treated as description, not a name.
Two things are deliberately left out. The industrial park containing the Mattina lots was named on the record in two mutually inconsistent ways — it is rendered “Samado” in the Planning Board audio and “somato” in the Town Board audio the same morning — and neither agenda names it at all, so this brief describes the location rather than guess at the park's name. Likewise, a person named only as “Mr. Glenn” in the Brawdy testimony, apparently the applicant's principal, is not named here; the audio is the only source.
Three roll-call artifacts, stated plainly rather than smoothed over. Wendy Salvati is not called in the recording of the Brawdy negative-declaration roll call (motion 3), though she is called and votes aye in the five others; the vote is recorded here as 6–0. The chairman's response on the temporary conditional permit transcribes as “Awesome” rather than “Aye,” and his aye on the first Mattina motion is missing from the audio entirely. And in the Brawdy concept-plan roll call the clerk's call of Daniel Tytka comes through as “Michael.” None of these appears to be an actual attendance or vote question; all are capture noise on a fast roll call.
Names carrying [*] were corrected from likely transcription errors against the Town's verified Planning Board roster or the agenda. Every Planning Board surname needed correcting: the recording variously gives “Wieckowski,” “Wachowski” and “Lekowski” for Lukowski; “Taika” and “Tyco” for Tytka; “Chidaro,” “Gritadaro,” “Dodaro,” “Jarrell,” “DeGioia” and “Dar” for Todaro; and “Begler,” “Bigwood” and “Biggs” for Bigler. Director of Community Development Jonathan Bleuer appears as “Mr. Bloor” and “Mr. Blair,” the councilman who led the Pledge is Paul Shear (“Scheer”), and SEQR is throughout rendered “seeker.” Applicants, developers, attorneys, architects and design representatives appear only in audio — agendas list entities, not people — so those names remain unverified until official minutes post, including Chris and Dante Santora, Dan LaPietra, Michael Anderson of Abstract Architecture, Ari Goldberg of Barclay Damon, Joe Mattina, and Clemente Tafoya, whose surname the corrections file already carries as unconfirmed.