Town of Clarence Planning Board
The Planning Board approved all three applications — an 8,000-square-foot equipment building for Lakeside Sod at 6660 Goodrich Road, a two-lot split of the Carl Jenkins estate on Salt Road, and a 2,400-square-foot addition letting Canine Kennels of Clarence board 40 more dogs. Neighbours' questions about noise and dust went to a permit this board does not control.
Lakeside Sod Supply Co., Inc. farms 23.3 acres of turf in Clarence's Industrial Business Park zone, and its equipment has outgrown its sheds. “All our ground equipment has grown in size and we can't get anything inside to repair it or to store it anymore,” the applicant told the board. The season runs to November or December — “depends on when Mother Nature stops us” — and when it ends the repairs begin. “You can't get it inside, that means in December you're outside working on it.”
The request was an 8,000-square-foot detached metal accessory structure for machinery storage and maintenance, referred over from the Town Board. Lead member Jason Geasling[*] asked two questions: overall height, given as about 27 feet[3], and visibility from the road. The answer was that the building is well shielded from Goodrich and “exponentially more so” from County.
Then the chair opened the floor, and the evening's only members of the public came forward — three of them, all neighbours, none of them there about the building.
The first asked whether lights would be left burning past business hours toward his property, and then something more revealing: was approval being given tonight, or had it already been given and this was just the hearing? The second asked about sound mitigation — “the beeping of the machinery.” The third asked what the stone pad beside the building was for.
The lighting question the applicant answered directly: dark-sky compliant and shielded. The stone pad turned out to be two feet of millings laid as the base the new building will sit on. But the beeping got a different kind of answer. “Is that associated with the building?” the chair asked. “Because the issue before us is the building.” Work that requires beeping, he explained, belongs to the Town Board, or to the excavation permit. He said it again before the vote: “The permit to do that comes from the town board, not the planning board, and the issue before us tonight is a building.”
The board did not ignore it, though. Written into the approval motion was an acknowledgement that the applicant “has provided testimony of their ongoing efforts to reduce operational impacts to adjacent property owners,” and that those measures “will continue to be monitored through the town board's annual excavation permit review and renewal process.” Ten conditions attached — among them dark-sky lighting switched off within an hour of closing except for security, and access drives maintained to prevent excessive dust. Both SEQR and the approval carried 5–0.
A resident with a complaint about a working farm or quarry has to bring it to the right body, and the difference is not obvious from outside.
The Planning Board rules on the thing being built — the site plan, the architecture, the lighting attached to that structure. Its jurisdiction ends at the building envelope.
The Town Board holds the excavation permit, reviewed and renewed annually. That is where operating hours, machinery noise, dust and the conduct of the business itself actually live.
So a neighbour objecting to reversing alarms at dawn who comes to a Planning Board meeting has come to the right building on the wrong night. The useful date is the Town Board's annual permit renewal — which is precisely why the board wrote that renewal into its motion.
Canine Kennels of Clarence wants to grow. The two-acre industrial parcel already holds a boarding kennel; the application was for a 2,400-square-foot metal addition to the principal structure, housing more boarding kennels. Jake Metzger[3] of Metzger Engineering[3] presented with the owner[3], and kept it brief: “It's a growing business, and the reason for the expansion is that there's a market for it.”
Lead member Gregory Todaro[*] ran the questioning, and it was the most substantive of the night. How many more dogs? About 40. How is barking controlled? A six-foot stockade fence outside; insulation and perforated sound-muffling panels inside. Waste and odour? A sizeable septic system plus a separate tank pumped on a schedule — “the dog waste actually goes through septic,” which surprised the questioner as much as it may surprise a reader. The engineer undertook to confirm the system can carry the added capacity.
Then Todaro asked where the dumpster is, and the answers thinned. “I'm not exactly sure what they do.” “I don't recall seeing a dumpster on site.” “I'm sure it is on the property… I don't know where it is though.” Feed, at least, is kept inside. Lighting would be dark-sky compliant at entrances; the nearest neighbours to the south are industrial, with a concrete plant across the road[3] and bus garages to the east. Landscaping “hasn't been discussed yet.”
No one from the public spoke. Both motions carried 5–0, with twelve conditions — two more than the sod building got. Several answer the questions that went unanswered: outside dumpsters or totes must be fully enclosed by town-approved screening and kept closed when not in use, with no debris accumulating outside them; drives and parking must be striped and maintained; and no additional future business operations or operators may take over the site without town review. Todaro added a parting instruction for the record: work with the planning office on where the dumpster goes — “if there is one.”
Before every conditioned approval, this chair puts the same three questions to the applicant, on the record, and waits for three answers:
Did you hear all the conditions? Did you understand all the conditions? Do you agree to all the conditions?
It looks like theatre and isn't. Conditions are the enforcement hook — the thing the town points at when a structure is built in the wrong colour or a dumpster appears unscreened. Getting an audible yes to each question forecloses the later argument that an applicant never knew what they agreed to.
Between the two came the night's simplest item, and it took about four minutes. The Estate of Carl Jenkins asked to split a 4.2-acre agricultural parcel on the east side of Salt Road, north of Lapp, into two. The new lot would be roughly 2.5 acres with about 348 feet of frontage; the parent parcel retains about 1.71 acres with roughly 495 feet of frontage, the existing single-family house and its accessory structures.
Lead member Keith Lukowski[*] had nothing to ask. “It's a pretty simple lot split. I don't have anything else.” No other member had a question; nobody in the audience rose. The negative declaration and the subdivision both carried 5–0, under five conditions — county highway approval for access to the new lot, town review of any future construction, county health department sign-off on any future on-site sanitary facilities, drainage easements if the town requires them, and the usual open space and recreation fees. The chair pointed the family toward filing deeds with Erie County and the town.
Present and voting: Keith Lukowski[*], Jason Geasling[*], Gregory Todaro[*], Richard Bigler and Robert Sackett. Daniel Tytka[*] and Wendy Salvati[*] were absent — “we're short a couple people this evening, but we do have a quorum.” Every roll call below was 5–0 except the minutes, where one member abstained for absence. Each project takes two votes: a SEQR determination, then the approval itself.
Nearly forgotten in the running order and taken up only when a member prompted the chair — “August 19th, two months ago, forgot all about it.” Geasling[*] abstained, not having been present.
Unlisted action; Part 1 environmental assessment form accepted as submitted, Parts 2 and 3 approved as prepared. The 8,000 sq ft detached accessory structure is determined to have no significant negative environmental impact. Moved by Geasling[*].
Per plans received in the planning office August 19 and September 29. Conditions: engineering, building and fire inspector requirements met before any permits; outside agency permits where required; construction per labelled materials, industry-standard quality, rendered colours; structure and site maintained as approved in perpetuity with deficiencies repaired; all lighting dark-sky compliant and shielded, none above the roof ridge line, off no later than one hour after business hours except necessary security lighting; access drives maintained to prevent excessive dust; future modifications subject to town review; prior approvals remain in force; signage subject to the sign review committee or planning office; open space and other applicable fees. The motion records the applicant's testimony on reducing operational impacts to neighbours and that these will be monitored through the Town Board's annual excavation permit renewal.
Unlisted action; a lot split creating one new lot in the Agricultural Rural Residential zone. Moved by Lukowski[*].
Per application received in the planning office September 21, 2026. New lot about 2.5 acres with roughly 348 ft of frontage; parent parcel retains about 1.71 acres, roughly 495 ft of frontage, the existing single-family residence and accessory structures. Conditions: Erie County Department of Public Works approval for access to the new lot; town review of any future construction; Erie County Health Department approval of any future on-site sanitary facilities; drainage easements if required, filed with the county clerk before permits or pools issue; open space, recreation and other applicable fees.
Unlisted action; construction of an approximately 2,400 sq ft principal structure addition. Moved by Todaro[*].
Per site plans received September 2, 2026. Capacity for roughly 40 additional dogs. Conditions include the standard engineering, building and fire requirements; outside agency permits; labelled materials and rendered colours matching the existing building; maintenance in perpetuity; drives and parking striped and maintained with no parking outside designated areas; outside dumpsters or totes fully enclosed by town-approved screening, kept closed when not in use, with no accumulation of garbage or debris outside them; future modifications subject to town review; no additional future business operations or operators unless reviewed and approved by the town; prior conditions remain in force; signage review; open space and other fees. Applicant confirmed hearing, understanding and agreeing to all twelve. Todaro[*] added that the applicant should work with the planning office on the dumpster's location.
Moved and carried about 28 minutes after the 7:00 p.m. call to order.
What aired. The agenda sets a 6:30 p.m. work session to review State Environmental Quality Review Act items and the agenda itself, and states plainly that it is not available on the live stream. It is not in this recording. That matters here more than usual: the SEQR determinations the board voted on in public were worked through in that unbroadcast session, so what the stream captures is the vote rather than the reasoning. The recording opens a few minutes before the gavel on the chair explaining the sign-in sheet — signing in puts a resident on the notice list if a project returns — and ends at adjournment.
Corrections. [*] marks a proper noun corrected against the posted agenda or this town's verified board roster, which govern over the audio. This board's surnames are the pipeline's most reliably mangled: the recording renders them as “Likowski,” “Lekowski,” “Giesling,” “Geisling,” “Kiesling,” “Tadaro,” “Tadara,” “Chidaro,” “DeGarro” and “Taika” for Lukowski, Geasling, Todaro and Tytka. The agenda is authoritative for all three applicants — Lakeside Sod Supply Co., Inc., the Estate of Carl Jenkins and Canine Kennels of Clarence — and for the three addresses and their zoning.
Unconfirmed names. [3] marks detail the audio alone supports. Agendas name applicants, not the people who speak for them, so the Lakeside presenter, the engineer and owner on the kennel application, the resident who asked about lighting, the town attorney's timekeeper, the staff member who introduces each project and the councilman who led the pledge are all audio-only and are therefore either flagged or left unnamed. The building's overall height was given as 27 feet in an exchange that also referenced the eave height, and the two cannot be separated on the recording; a question about building materials drew an answer the microphone did not capture.
Street validation. Run against the Clarence street inventory: two candidates, County Road and Goodrich Road, both exact matches. Salt Road did not surface because the transcript renders it in lower case and the extractor works on cased text — a known gap in the tool, noted so that a clean result is not mistaken for a complete one. Salt Road is confirmed by the agenda. All three subject addresses were cross-referenced against this publication's scanner address record; none appears in it.
A note on jurisdiction. Three residents came to this meeting with operational complaints and were told, correctly, that this board rules only on the building. That is not a brush-off, and it is reported above with the explanation attached, because a reader who takes away only “approved” will have missed where the actual lever is: the Town Board's annual excavation permit renewal.