Council denies conditional‑use request for pool‑table shop at 357 Northeast Boulevard

Clinton City Council · December 3, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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

Council denied a conditional‑use application for 357 Northeast Boulevard after hearing concerns about parking, neighborhood complaints including alleged outside smoking near a church playground, and the applicant’s failure to meet five ordinance standards required for approval.

The Clinton City Council denied a conditional‑use request for 357 Northeast Boulevard after concluding the petitioner had not met the ordinance’s required standards.

Staff said the parcel is 7.23 acres in total and that the retail tenant had installed four pool tables without prior permission; staff described the current setup as a use that could be remedied if the council granted approval. The applicant, identified in the hearing as Mister Ewalde, said the site operates primarily as a smoke‑shop with pool tables and estimated typical attendance between 20 and 30 people, with occasional busier periods.

Neighbors and a nearby church representative raised complaints about people congregating outside, alleged smoking and late‑night crowds near a playground. A council member noted the potential for heated confrontations in public spaces where children play: “If potentially something hard head comes and pulls a gun … that’s my biggest concern.” The applicant said signs were posted to discourage loitering and that staff in the store instruct patrons to leave the lot when they finish.

After a staff summary and public comment, council members moved through each of the ordinance’s standards. Several members made motions that the development did not comply with the standards; after voice votes the council concluded the application failed to meet the required findings and denied the conditional use.

City staff told the council that denying the request would maintain enforcement of existing land‑use rules; if the applicant later comes into compliance or provides additional evidence, the council may reconsider a future application.