Lufkin commission denies gas station’s request to expand tree clearing near residential neighborhood
LUFKIN, Texas (KTRE) - Lufkin’s Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously Monday night to deny a request from the developer behind a proposed gas station to expand the area of trees it could clear on its south side property, but the station itself can still be built as originally approved.
The commission voted 5-0 to deny the revised clearing limits requested by “On the Road,” a proposed gas station and convenience store slated for 4903 South First Street along U.S. Highway 59.
What was decided - and what wasn’t
Monday’s vote was limited to one question: whether to allow the developer to expand the boundaries of where trees could be cleared on the approximately 29-acre site.
The commission said no.
However, the original site plan -approved by the commission in April 2026, still stands. The gas station can still be built as originally approved at 4903 South First Street along Highway 59, just without the additional clearing the developer requested Monday night.
READ MORE: Lufkin gas station approved despite resident concerns over neighborhood rules
The city is also still waiting on lighting specifications from the developer before it can issue a building permit. As a condition of the original approval, all outdoor lighting at the site must use full cut-off, downward-facing fixtures to reduce light pollution and glare for neighboring properties.
Planned Unit Development
The proposed gas station sits within a Planned Unit Development, or PUD - a type of zoning district that operates under its own set of rules governing what can and cannot be built there. The PUD covering this area of south Lufkin was approved by city council in December 2001.
The subject property falls within Zone F of the PUD, which carries specific development regulations including a 50-foot front building setback to Highway 59, a 100-foot landscape buffer along the east, south, and west sides of the property, and landscaping requirements of 10% of the land area with one tree per 5,000 square feet.
The project has a lengthy history before the commission. A site plan was first submitted in September 2025 for an automobile service station that included separate diesel fuel pumps and semi-truck parking. That plan was approved with conditions, including the landscape buffers.
In April 2026, the developer returned with a revised site plan that removed the diesel pumps and semi-truck parking, scaling the project back to a convenience store and fuel pumps for passenger vehicles only. That revised plan was approved with the condition that all outdoor lighting be downward-facing.
Monday night, the developer came back again - this time asking to expand the limits of where trees could be cleared on the site.
Why the developer wanted more clearing
Project surveyor Michael Parker told the commission the additional clearing flexibility was tied to drainage and construction needs.
“In all the drainage and the dirt that’s needing to be used, they can get their dirt from the site and not from having to bring in dirt and whatnot, so they can clear more,” Parker said. “They didn’t anticipate as much when they first did everything.”
Parker also pushed back on criticism of the project, arguing the developer had gone above and beyond what the city required, including voluntarily offering landscape buffers that were not mandated by the PUD ordinance.
“There’s no requirement for buffer. That’s something we volunteered at the very first one in September to try to be good neighbors,” Parker said. “Technically, you can put buildings 10 feet from the property line. So, if there is a use that everybody was happy with and you put the building 10 foot from the property line, there would still be people unhappy because that’s allowed in the setbacks.”
Parker said the developer had followed every requirement the city asked of them.
“The client asked, he was told we have provided the data for the client and so therefore we don’t know what else to do but ask for your approval,” Parker said. “Because from what we have submitted, we’ve been told that’s all we’ve not been asked to provide anything else.”
‘This is not responsible growth’
Residents of the surrounding neighborhood turned out in force Monday night to oppose the request, raising concerns about tree removal, drainage, traffic safety, and property values.
Stacy Garcia, who lives across the highway from the proposed site, said the development threatens the character of the community residents chose to call home.
“We purchased our property there because it was nice and quiet and wooded,” Garcia said. “But that forest track across the highway served as a natural barrier for our homes from commercial development.”
Garcia said she is not opposed to growth, but argued this project is the wrong fit.
“I’m not opposed to growth or development within our city,” she said. “But it should be thoughtful and compatible to the existing neighborhoods to improve our community, not diminish it. Those changes don’t just affect our quality of life, they also affect our property values.”
Garcia also raised concerns about drainage, pointing to a previous development near the neighborhood that she said caused significant runoff problems.
“With removing those trees, we are probably going to have the same episode that we had whenever that development was built behind The Settlement,” Garcia said. “They didn’t plan it. How much dirt ran into the settlement, affected the drainage, all of the lines that had to be redug because of poor planning. And now you’re going to allow for more trees to be removed on the other side that drains into our neighborhood.”
Traffic on the fast-moving stretch of Highway 59 was also a major concern. Garcia noted that residents must cross the highway to access Lufkin, and questioned whether the proposed deceleration and acceleration lanes would be adequate.
“Adding another commercial development will only increase traffic and create more conflict points,” she said. “We should be working to reduce those risks, not add them.”
Adjacent property owner raises comprehensive plan concerns
Phil Medford, president of the I.D. & Marguerite Fairchild Foundation, which owns the property immediately north of the proposed gas station site, told the commission the project conflicts with Lufkin’s own long-term growth plan.
“This use is in no way compatible with the comprehensive plan of the city of Lufkin,” Medford said.
Medford said the Fairchild Foundation has invested in studies and engineering for a planned unit development on its property, one that would include a convention center, office buildings, a boutique hotel, and green belt areas.
“A variety of uses with a lot of green belt - that is a planned unit development,” Medford said. “This is one commercial use on a tract that’s not zoned commercial.”
Medford also questioned the city’s commitment to its own planning documents, noting that Lufkin spent $250,000 in taxpayer money on a comprehensive plan that calls for preserving the city’s natural beauty and tree canopy.
“It begs the question of why the city would spend $250,000 of the taxpayers’ money for a comprehensive plan, adopt it, and then put it on the shelf and not use it for planning the city’s growth,” Medford said.
Clearing the wooded lot for a gas station, he argued, directly contradicts the plan’s stated goals.
“The plan calls for the beautification and enhancement of gateways and to preserve and enhance Lufkin’s natural beauty through policy which maintains the existing tree canopy,” Medford said. “Denuding this lot of these trees and clearing it for a gas station does not comply with the comprehensive plan.”
Resident challenges the legal definition
Lufkin resident Tom Darmstadter II, argued Monday that the gas station doesn’t meet the city’s own legal definition of an “automobile service station” - and therefore shouldn’t be permitted in the PUD at all.
Under the city’s ordinance, an automobile service station is defined as: “Any building, land area, or other premises, or portion thereof, used for the retail dispensing or sales of vehicular fuels; servicing and repair of automobiles; and including as an accessory use the sale and installation of lubricants, tires, batteries, similar vehicle accessories and sundry items.”
Darmstadter argued the definition requires two elements: fuel sales and automobile servicing and repair. He says that “On the Road,” has no service bays or mechanics, therefore, only fulfilling one of the requirements.
“A facility that dispenses fuel and includes a convenience store has no service bays, no mechanics, no automobile repair operation, it simply doesn’t meet element two,” Darmstadter said. “It fails the definition regardless of what the applicant calls it on the application.”
Darmstadter also noted that the developer’s own state filings described the project as a “mini truck stop with fast food.”
“They were calling this a truck stop and when they realized that they had opposition, now they’re calling it an automobile service station,” Darmstadter said. “The documents they filed with the state call it a mini truck stop with fast food. So, the question is - what is it really?”
City planner: project meets the definition
City Planner Alaina Helton has maintained that the revised project - limited to a convenience store and fuel pumps for passenger vehicles, meets the city’s definition of an automobile service station.
“This new revised site plan was limited to just the convenience store and fuel pumps for passenger vehicles,” Helton said previously. “All of the semi-truck parking and fuel pumps, those were removed from the site plan.”
Helton acknowledged the definition is broad.
“It doesn’t make a distinction between semi-truck vehicles or passenger vehicles. A truck stop would also fall into that category,” Helton said. “The definition is broad in that way, but that may have been the source of the confusion.”
Commission votes 5-0 to deny
Commission member Keisha Williams, who was sitting in as chair Monday night, made the motion to deny the expanded clearing request. Williams said she was not present at the April meeting when the revised site plan was approved. She cited two reasons for her opposition.
“I was going to oppose this motion for the following reasons - because of the tree removal and, to keep it simple, the safety and the drainage,” Williams said.
The motion carried 5-0.
What happens next
Despite Monday’s denial, the gas station project is not dead. The gas station can still be built as originally approved at 4903 South First Street along Highway 59. Tonight’s vote only blocked the additional tree clearing the developer requested.
The city is still waiting on lighting specifications from the developer before a building permit can be issued.
RELATED:
Copyright 2026 KLTV. All rights reserved.