Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Compliance Audit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Clifton council reaffirms town manager’s authority to audit Peterson’s Ice Cream over use-permit concerns

Town of Clifton Town Council · July 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Town of Clifton voted unanimously to affirm the town manager’s authority to conduct a compliance audit of Peterson’s Ice Cream after the business objected to manager access; council warned that refusal of access could jeopardize the shop’s Use Permit and directed staff to proceed with review against the Use Permit and Certificates of Appropriateness.

The Town of Clifton Council unanimously affirmed on Oct. 6, 2015, that the town manager may conduct a compliance audit of Peterson’s Ice Cream after the business sent a letter objecting to staff access.

The council approved the motion offered by Dwayne Nitz and seconded by Deborah Dillard directing the town manager to proceed “except in cases where there is a clear conflict of interest” and to conduct the audit against the Use Permit on file and the Certificates of Appropriateness issued by the Architectural Review Board. The town manager had earlier reported an interim report was sent to Council on Aug. 29, 2015, but that field work stopped after the business objected.

Mayor Bill Hollaway said the town code gives the Town authority to conduct compliance audits. Council member Eric Hencken asked whether the business continued to refuse admittance; Vice Mayor Dwayne Nitz noted the code authorizes the Town, through designated staff, to carry out compliance audits. Council directed staff to send a letter notifying the business that refusal of access for the purposes of a compliance audit could endanger the Use Permit and that Council expects the manager to proceed unless a conflict is shown.

Council also discussed scope issues with the applicable Use Permit, noting the permit dated 2010 had no subsequent recorded amendments and that satellite parking and other elements were not recorded or amended on the permit file. The council’s direction instructs staff to test compliance against the Use Permit on file and the ARB-issued Certificates of Appropriateness.

The vote was recorded as unanimous. Next steps: staff will resume the audit work and issue a notice to the business about access and potential permit consequences; the council did not vote to revoke the permit at the meeting.