Balch Springs council denies Kwik Trip plan for diesel truck fueling at Lake June Road site

Balch Springs — The City Council on Aug. 11 denied a rezoning and planned-development amendment requested by Kwik Trip (listed in the application as Bridal Clark DBA Kwik Trip Corporation) that would have allowed the addition of three diesel fueling canopies for tractor‑trailers at 12631 Lake June Road.

Planning staff opened the public hearing, explaining the original PD did not include diesel canopies and summarizing the application history, including a prior denial from the planning and zoning commission in 2023 and a subsequent P&Z approval by a 4–1 vote in April 2025 after the applicant revised the plan. Staff told council it still recommended denial. The applicant offered a development agreement that included a $10,000 contribution to traffic improvements and proposed camera access for law enforcement.

Supporters of denial said the traffic and infrastructure impacts outweighed the benefits. Resident Jess Bridal told council the projected 20% increase in taxable merchandise sales overstates local tax gains because fuel is taxed differently and most fuel customers are pass‑through motorists. Bridal also said the $10,000 traffic contribution was insufficient to address long‑term roadway wear and public‑safety concerns.

Council members who voted to deny cited truck circulation on narrow local streets, potential safety hazards where semi‑tractor trucks now park informally behind the site, and the limited scale of the applicant’s traffic mitigation contribution. At least one council member noted the development had been before P&Z multiple times and emphasized the council’s expectation that P&Z use independent judgment.

A motion to consider adoption of an ordinance initially died for lack of a second; a subsequent motion to deny the rezoning carried. The roll-call votes recorded during the meeting show four members voting to deny and two voting against denial; the council declared the motion passed and closed the associated developer agreement agenda item because the rezoning failed.

Council did not adopt any zoning changes or developer agreement for the site at the meeting; staff and the applicant were requested to follow administrative processes as required.

The decision leaves the site zoned under the existing planned development ordinance; any future application would require a new submittal and review by planning staff, P&Z and council.