Council denies rezoning and conditional-use request for truck-fueling center at 9055 Waterville‑Swanton Road

The Waterville City Council voted Aug. 25 to deny a zoning change and conditional-use requests for a proposed fuel-and-truck-stop development at 9055 Waterville‑Swanton Road, siding with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to refuse the application.

Municipal Administrator John Hovlich summarized three traffic studies submitted by the applicant that revised the proposal over time: the first study projected a 7,320-square-foot convenience store with 23 fueling positions and 6,724 vehicles per day (about 500 semi trucks); a later revision reduced the estimate to about 6,032 vehicles per day; and a final revision reduced the building footprint to 5,023 square feet with 20 fuel positions and an estimate of 4,514 vehicles per day with 400 semi trucks. Hovlich told council the project "is contrary to the goals of the city's 2012 comprehensive plan" because it would increase heavy-vehicle traffic, create nonconforming parcels and could reduce the future economic viability of adjacent land.

The applicant’s representatives said they revised plans after earlier meetings and reduced truck parking and fuel positions. Greg Peltz, the applicant representative, said the team "listened to your feedback and we modified or revised these plans now," and described the latest submittal as a fuel stop rather than a larger travel center.

Traffic consultant Robert Matco testified about methodology and said, "Traffic impact studies are conservative in nature," explaining that Institute of Transportation Engineers trip-generation rates err on the conservative side and that the studies included mitigation measures such as a roundabout or signal options. Matco said ODOT and county staff had indicated the roundabout concept was feasible and deferred ultimate control to the city because Waterville Swanton Road is under municipal jurisdiction.

Council members repeatedly raised safety and access concerns for the two‑lane Waterville‑Swanton corridor, the potential for trucks to queue at diesel pumps, and the effect on the remaining Tilton parcels to the south that would lose direct frontage to the road. Several council members said the site layout appeared to create landlocked or nonconforming lots, which would reduce the remaining parcels’ development value.

After discussion, a council member moved to affirm the Planning Commission’s denial; the motion carried on roll call. Councilors noted that overturning the Planning Commission would have required a supermajority; the council instead reaffirmed the denial and asked staff to record the outcome and notify the applicant.

The applicant was invited to remain in contact with staff about future proposals. No variance, easement, or mitigation plan was approved at the meeting.