Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Local Laws topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Clifton board adopts local litter and unsafe-building laws after public hearings

Town of Clifton Board · July 8, 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 passed two local laws—Proposed Local Law No. 3 (litter) and Proposed Local Law No. 4 (unsafe-building)—after prior public hearings and community input. Both measures passed on roll-call votes with one board member dissenting.

The Town of Clifton Board voted July 8 to adopt two local laws aimed at improving property conditions and addressing litter.

Supervisor William Griffin reopened discussion on two ordinances that had undergone public hearings in April and June. After the Supervisor summarized community feedback and requested a motion, Council Member Brett Blackmer moved to pass Proposed Local Law No. 3 (the litter law), seconded by Mary Zuhlsdorf. The roll call vote recorded Blackmer = Yes, Ray Campany = Nay, Zuhlsdorf = Yes, Griffin = Yes, John Russell = Absent; the motion carried. The board then passed Proposed Local Law No. 4 (unsafe-building law) on the same vote pattern.

The Supervisor noted the Town had prepared a step-by-step public process for landlords and residents to work with the Town on property issues and said the laws had been revised after community comment. Public concerns recorded during outreach included nuisance wildlife at unsecured trash, “trash houses” affecting property sales, and differing views among board members about enforcement scope. The transcript records the Supervisor asking, "Whether the Board wished to make another motion to move forward with and pass the proposed laws," which preceded each successful vote.

The laws were advanced by a majority vote, with one member dissenting. The board did not specify in the meeting record implementation timelines, enforcement staffing, or penalty schedules; those details remain as drafted in the laws and will determine enforcement scope going forward.

The Town previously solicited feedback via a notice in the Bargain Hunter and reported receiving 14 conversations and four emails about the proposed laws. The board left the item under old business until outstanding compliance items are resolved.