Town of Clarence — Town Board
A Gunville Road resident said two October blasts came with none of the warning calls he normally gets, and that his basement floor felt like it rose and fell. The operator accepted “full responsibility that maybe it did not happen.” The board then renewed all four excavation permits — attaching no conditions and no notification requirement.
Four annual excavation permits came up for renewal: a quarry operation at 8615 Worley Drive[*], a sod or sand operation at 6660 Goodrich Road, and two further permits on Worley Drive. The Director of Community Development introduced them and flagged, himself, why representatives were in the room: “due to the town receiving complaints throughout the prior year.”[1]
His conformance finding came first, and it is worth quoting exactly because of what it does and does not cover:
“all required paperwork including up-to-date tax bills, the New York State DEC mining permits, bonding and the necessary fees all have been collected by the planning office. And it's our opinion that these operations are in conformance currently with all permits on file.”[1]
That is a certification about paperwork — bills, permits, bonds, fees. It is not a finding about conduct, and nothing in it speaks to how the operations have behaved toward their neighbours. It was given before anyone from the public had spoken.
Then the one member of the public who came spoke. A resident of 4070 Gunville Road described a notification system that had worked and then stopped:
“I was getting a phone call every time before they blasted and I was getting a text before they blast. There was no notification. My wife and I were both home sitting in our family room and we could feel our house shake… My basement floor almost felt like it was going up and then came back down. So, I mean, the house is moving.”[1]
He put two dates to it — a large unannounced blast in the spring, and another on October 7. He also described the wider effect of the operation on his road: the town had designated Gunville Road a truck route about a year ago, “so we have all the trucks going by our homes,” with no weighing or checking since — “there is nobody… that sits on that road and weighs trucks or checks trucks” — plus engine braking from six in the morning. He asked the board to drop the speed limit from 40 to 30.[1]
His closing was about the housing stock, not himself: “My house is about 70 years old and I've lived there for over 50 years. And his house, I think, is 150 years old. He's got the old stones for foundation… but his house shakes, it really shakes. So I would appreciate anything that the town could do for us.”[1]
The operator did not dispute him. A representative of the quarry company accepted the failure in terms that leave little room: the company's obligation is to “inform the members of the community around us that the blasting is going to occur and at what time it's going to occur… we just want to make sure that we're better at that. We'll take full responsibility that maybe it did not happen.”[1]
On the October 7 blast the company produced a reading: at a seismograph at 4080 Gunville Road, “the air overpressure was 113.1. Our limit is 133… it's a log-10 scale, 113.1 is approximately 10% of our limit.” It said it maintains five permanent seismographs plus a portable one, and offered to “pay for a seismograph to be placed directly on his property.”[1]
A board member pressed for something simpler still: “Brandon, is it possible that you work with Mike? And when you're going to do a blast, somebody goes to his house. Just to me it seems so easy… he's not making up that he's feeling the vibration.”[1]
This brief read the adopted motion in full. After the recitals, the operative clause is this and nothing more:
“after all interested parties having been heard, the Clarence Town Board hereby authorizes the annual renewal of excavation permits for the following…” — followed by the four names and addresses.
No conditions. No notification requirement. No reporting obligation. No review date. Moved, seconded, “All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carried.”
The seismograph on the resident's property and the personal pre-blast contact are voluntary offers made at the microphone, not terms of the permit. If they do not happen, nothing in the renewal is breached.
The public hearing was closed before the applicants spoke. At the planner's prompting — “this would be the representatives, so you may want to close the public hearing at this point” — the chair closed it, after which the company's representatives testified for roughly twelve minutes.
That is not unusual practice and nothing turns on it legally, but it means the operator's account of the October 7 blast, its seismograph readings and its offers all sit outside the hearing record rather than inside it. A resident reading the hearing file alone would not find them.
This was a 74-minute meeting on October 28. Across the entire recording, the following words do not occur once: 2027. Levy. Tax cap. Override. Tentative budget. Preliminary budget.[1]
Under New York Town Law a supervisor files a tentative budget by the end of September and the board holds a budget hearing in early November. Three public hearings were scheduled at this meeting, all for November 18 — at 10:15, 10:20 and 10:25 a.m. None of them is the budget hearing.[1]
This brief does not conclude that Clarence has no budget hearing. The likeliest explanation is that it was set at the October 14 meeting, whose minutes were approved here without discussion. But the public record of this meeting — the last regular meeting before November — contains no reference to the town's 2027 finances at all, and a resident who watched only this meeting would not know a budget was pending.
The contrast with the neighbours is stark and worth stating plainly: the Town of Amherst spent much of its October 26 meeting on a 6.9% levy increase and adopted a local law overriding the state tax cap. Clarence's board, two days later, discussed road salt, veterans' banners and a quarry.[4]
What the board did do with money was move it: four separate transfers out of the same 2026 personal services account — $40,000 to legal and professional fees, $35,000 to unallocated insurance, $40,000 to light, heat, power and water, and $15,000 to unemployment benefits. $130,000 in total, all from salaries, all adopted without discussion. Four transfers out of one account late in a fiscal year is the sort of pattern a budget hearing exists to explain.[1]
The board set a public hearing for November 18 at 10:15 a.m. on Local Law 2026-10, adding a new Article 9 to Chapter 109 of the town code. Its subject: a property tax exemption for veterans with a 100 per cent permanent and total disability resulting from military service.[1]
The councilman moving it explained the mechanism: New York “passed a law allowing cities, counties, towns, villages and school districts to opt into this… Currently veterans get some level of exemption if they apply for it, but this is for veterans that have a 100 percent permanent and total disability.”[1]
He was candid about where he stood and where the matter sits: “I think I'm leaning toward approving it, but I know we have other people we want to talk to — there's some towns and school districts that may not be on board with this.” He noted the town assessor was present to answer questions.[1]
This publication reported the other half of that sentence two days earlier. At the Clarence Central School District Board of Education on October 26, the superintendent said the district had received six or seven resident emails on the same exemption, that it had been “talking with policy experts, by talking with the Clarence Town Assessor, other districts,” and that it would hold its own public hearing in November followed by a mandatory 30-day waiting period.[5]
So two separately elected Clarence bodies are weighing the same opt-in in the same month, consulting the same assessor, and neither has published a cost estimate. Residents who care about this have two hearings to attend, not one — the town's on November 18, the district's at a November date not yet fixed on the record. Neither body has stated an exemption percentage, an assessed-value cap, or an estimated shift onto other taxpayers.
The board granted a clearing, filling and grading permit at 5445 Transit Road — a 13.7-acre parcel, with just under five acres to be disturbed — together with a SEQR negative declaration.[1]
The applicant's attorney was careful to ring-fence what the board was deciding: there is “a current proposal that's in front of the town for a mixed-use project,” whose “review… has been put on hold longer than we hoped and anticipated as we address sanitary sewer capacity, which is a much bigger issue.” He wanted it “clear on the record” that a negative declaration here “does not commit this board or the planning board to any decision making whatsoever on the proposed mixed-use project.” The planner confirmed the mixed-use application is in coordinated review with no approval yet.[1]
Then the exchange that deserves preserving. A board member asked whether the neighbours had been told:[1]
“Have all the neighbors been notified?” — “I don't know. Yeah, there's not been a formal notification.” — “It's not a building project. It's just land clearing.” — and then, twice, from a voice the recording does not identify: “So what? I don't know. So what?”[1]
The member who raised it made the case anyway: “if you notify the neighbors up front, then there's no surprises and it's all about communication.” The answer was “Sure, and I understand that.”[1]
The permit passed with five conditions, none of which is neighbour notification. What followed instead was a request rather than a requirement — the supervisor asking the attorney whether he “will maybe send a letter or something to those residents around the back,” and staff offering afterwards: “if you'd like, we could run a neighbor notification list and provide it to you.”[1]
One gap in the record on this item. The supervisor specifically asked for a roll call “because this is a land use” — the right instinct. On the SEQR determination the recording captures three ayes (Altieri, Shear, DiCostanzo) and the declaration that one member was absent, and then moves on: the supervisor's own vote is not in the recording. His vote is captured on the permit itself moments later. We report the outcome and note that the official minutes are the authority for that tally.[1]
The most consequential thing said all morning came as an aside at a permit hearing, from a quarry executive rather than from the town:[1]
“So we are very concerned about salt supply… Erie County put out a bid for 75,000 tons, no bids. The suppliers on the Great Lakes aren't bidding salt into the Buffalo market for some reason.”[1]
Asked to confirm, he did: “you have no salt coming at this time… because you can't get any bulk pricing.” — “Correct. We're working on it almost every day.” And a visual: “I drove by the salt mine in Geneseo yesterday, and it's about three-quarters full. Not like previous years where it would be over full.”[1]
This is a vendor's account, not the town's, and this publication has not verified it. It is reported because it is checkable — Erie County can confirm whether a 75,000-ton solicitation drew no bids — and because of what it would mean for every municipal highway budget in the region. Readers should note that Amherst, two days earlier, reported paying $93 a ton for 2027 salt against $57 in 2026, which is consistent with a market under strain.[4]
The board is Supervisor Patrick Casilio (chairs) and Councilmen Robert Altieri, Peter DiCostanzo, Daniel Michnik and Paul Shear. Councilman Michnik was absent, declared as such at three separate roll calls. The opening roll call is incomplete as recorded — one member's response is missing and one is never called — so attendance here is established from the three roll-call votes, at which the other four all answered. Eighteen of the twenty-one motions were collective voice votes, in which an individual dissent would be inaudible; no “no,” “nay,” abstention or recusal occurs anywhere in the meeting.
Public hearing held, one resident spoke. Permit holders named in the motion as New Enterprise / Buffalo Crushstone at 8615 Worley Drive; Lakeside Sands at 6660 Goodrich Road; and Michael Development at two further Worley Drive addresses.
One naming discrepancy worth resolving: the planner introduced the Goodrich Road holder as a sod company; the adopted motion names it Lakeside Sands. Same address, two different entity names in one meeting. The agenda packet would settle which entity holds the renewed permit.
Operational context given by the company: output around 1.6 to 1.8 million tons this year; all three of its asphalt plants are being decommissioned in favour of one new plant on the Worley Drive property, pending a state air permit — already approved by the Town of Lancaster, not Clarence. As a board member put it, “really all we control is the entrance exit.”
Adds Article 9 to Chapter 109 (Taxation). The town assessor attended and was offered to residents for questions. No exemption percentage, assessed-value cap or revenue impact was stated.
13.7 acres, just under five to be disturbed. Conditions include silt-sock erosion control as approved and payment of applicable fees; neighbour notification is not among them. A mixed-use proposal for the rear of the site remains in coordinated review, held up by sanitary sewer capacity.
Taken by roll call at the supervisor's request because it is a land-use matter. On the SEQR determination the recording captures three ayes and one declared absence; the supervisor's vote is not captured. His vote is captured on the permit.
2026 general fund: $40,000 to legal and professional fees; $35,000 to unallocated insurance; $40,000 to light, heat, power and water; $15,000 to unemployment benefits. Each moved and carried on a voice vote with nothing on the question.
On the third of the four, the word “carried” is never spoken on the recording — the chair runs the result straight into the next motion. The outcome is not in doubt from context, but the minutes are the authority.
Moved by the supervisor, taken as an add-on. His stated case: “our cashless bail program, I think, has been a total failure,” and that someone caught stealing an $80,000 car receives only an appearance ticket.
Later in the meeting he returned to it with an incident from the previous night — people entering a Clarence garage at 4:30 a.m. and taking a safe containing guns, jewellery, an electric bike and cash: “So that's why we're doing these resolutions, to try and wake up Albany.” This brief reports his account; it is not independently verified and no police report reference was given.
Senior Centre Furniture Update: total project cost $7,600, grant request $7,220, town match $380 — 5% of cost, from general fund appropriations. The town also signed on again to Rural Transit Service Inc. for the 2026–27 grant year, described as the one consistent project year over year and as providing about 2,800 trips a year.
10:20 a.m. — a bakery sales stand on a 0.7-acre parcel at 5615 Salt Road, east side of Salt south of Howe. 10:25 a.m. — a construction company on 1.4 acres at 7767 Transit Road, east side of Transit north of Wolcott. Both applicants attended and spoke to their requests.
The construction applicant identified himself and his company by one name; the adopted motion records a different spelling of it. The posted agenda is the authority, and this brief does not print either version.
Speed limits reduced to 25 mph on Anfield Road, Eastmoor Lane and William Smith Way in the Eastern Hills church area, with an extra sign at 521 Anfield Road. Two Special Patrol Officer titles added to the town's civil service inventory and one appointment made at $46.76 an hour, under an agreement with the Clarence Central School District.
Veterans honour banners: a three-person delegation asked the town to restore banners on Main Street poles, after the previous set “were weathered terribly over the winter… it was disrespectful to the people on the banner that they look like they're crying.” A councilman corrected the suggestion that the programme is free to the town — sponsors pay for the banners, but “we have to pay the guys” to hang them — while adding “I don't think the money is an issue with me. It's more the safety of it.” No vote was taken.
Housing starts are down. A councilman reported “residential single-family permits through September, there were sixty seven… I don't think we'll hit a hundred, which would keep us under recent averages… even though it seems like there's a lot of houses going up, the numbers tell us it's only 67 now for the year.”
On the quarry. This brief reports a sequence of recorded events: a paperwork conformance finding, a resident's account of two unannounced blasts, an operator accepting responsibility for the notification failure, and an unconditioned renewal. It does not allege that any permit was violated, that the blasts exceeded any limit, or that the planner's certification was wrong — the company's own reading for October 7 was well inside its stated limit, and the certification was expressly about documents on file. The gap the record shows is between a company's voluntary promises at a microphone and the terms of the permit the board actually granted.
On the budget. The absence of 2027 budget content is a verified fact about this recording, not a conclusion about the town. We have said what the record contains and named the likeliest innocent explanation. The Town Clerk is the authority for the budget hearing date and we have asked for it.
Vote tallies. Eighteen of twenty-one motions were collective voice votes; this brief therefore reports outcomes and does not describe any vote as unanimous or as 4–0. Three motions were taken by name. The meeting also adjourned without a recorded motion or vote, the chair closing it mid-conversation.
Figures we are withholding. The bill pay for October 22 was approved at a stated total of $398,650.65, but the six individual fund amounts read aloud sum to $190,000 less than that, with the cents matching exactly. That is the signature of a single mis-transcribed line, not a discrepancy in the town's warrant. We therefore publish the stated total and none of the fund-by-fund figures, and have requested the abstract of claims.
Names and places. The board roster is human-verified in this pipeline against official Clarence minutes, and every councilman's surname is mangled by the transcriber in predictable ways already mapped in our corrections file. Several street names are not: the quarry road is rendered three different ways in one meeting (“Whirly,” “Worley,” “roly”) and the resident's road two ways (“Gunville,” “gun bill”). We have used the spellings that appear in the adopted motions, marked them, and added all of them to the corrections file for verification against the town's street inventory. Residents and company representatives are identified by role or street rather than by full name where the recording renders a surname only once.
Capture. 74.3 minutes, faster-whisper “medium,” 975 segments of which 906 are distinct, longest identical consecutive run 2, most frequent segment 1.54%, language confidence p=0.997, effective coverage 76.8% with no segment spanning dead air. One stretch of roughly 75 seconds in the quarry exchange survives only as four disconnected fragments and is not quoted; an answer immediately after it implies a complaint was raised that the record does not preserve.