The El Paso County Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 on Thursday to grant Buc-ee’s appeal, overturning the Planning Director’s determination. The proposed travel center at Interstate 25 and County Line Road may be treated as an allowed use in the C-1 zoning district. This is an initial report; fuller coverage follows.
Commissioner Lauren Nelson moved to approve the appeal and Commissioner Cory Applegate seconded it. The motion carried 4-1, with Commissioner Bill Wysong the only vote against.
| Commissioner | Vote on the appeal |
|---|---|
| Cory Applegate | Yes |
| Carrie Geitner | Yes |
| Lauren Nelson | Yes |
| Holly Williams | Yes |
| Bill Wysong | No |
Roll call on the motion to approve the appeal, APP-26-001, August 27, 2026. A Yes vote is a vote to grant the appeal.
Public comment ran for most of the day. Two speakers addressed the Board in support of the appeal; by The Independent’s count, about 160 spoke against it. Under the County’s published procedure for a quasi-judicial hearing, the Board “must base its findings on specific, factual evidence instead of public popularity,” and the number of people testifying either way “will not outweigh evidence that the project meets the legal criteria for approval.”
What the Board decided
The appeal, docketed as agenda item APP-26-001 and as file APP261 in the County’s development review portal, turned on a single question: whether a 74,000-square-foot travel center with 120 fueling positions qualifies as a “Convenience Store” under Section 1.15 of the Land Development Code, or is sufficiently similar to a use the C-1 district allows.
Buc-ee’s EPCO, LLC filed the appeal on July 2 after Planning and Community Development Director Meggan Herington determined on July 1 that she was unable to find that the proposal met the definition. The Board’s decision reverses that determination.
What the commissioners said
The Board discussed the appeal for about half an hour before voting.
Vice Chair Lauren Nelson, who moved to approve, rested her reasoning on the second of the Code’s two pathways — not whether the project is a convenience store, but whether it is similar to uses C-1 already allows. She had staff display the applicant’s own hypothetical site plans for the parcel: a general retail concept, a supercenter, a theater. “C-1 zoning does not stipulate size requirements,” she said, and noted that a hotel is an allowed use in the district, which “points to the intention of travelers being a permitted use.” She framed the question as one of property: rights to a neighbor’s land or to a view, she said, are “not in the constitution.”
Commissioner Bill Wysong disagreed on the burden. “The burden of proof still remains on the applicant,” he said. “I do not believe they met that burden of proof.” He answered the hotel comparison directly, noting that C-1 caps buildings at 30 feet, “so that automatically takes a whole bunch of these out of consideration,” and said unresolved questions about the site plan, drainage and impervious surfaces left “enough doubt.” He offered his own reading of the Code’s undefined term: a neighborhood “usually revolves around the elementary school … it does not traverse miles.” Of himself and Commissioner Applegate, he added: “I live in Mountain Shadows, and Cory lives in Fountain. We’re neighbors. I don’t agree with that.”
Commissioner Holly Williams cast the vote that decided it, and said she had “gone both ways” during the discussion. What settled it was the shape of the parcel. “The key picture that probably leads me to vote yes is this cutout of the corner property,” she said. “I would say it needs to be a full rezone if that corner wasn’t pulled out of the property.” She conceded the scale — “we have never dealt with a store this big” — and said size was what she had struggled with. She also asked the record to reflect that she does not want traffic turning left onto Beacon Lite Road, while acknowledging she would have no control over that when a site plan comes forward: “I may not be here anymore.”
Commissioner Cory Applegate seconded the motion. His remarks were thanks to staff and to those who had presented; he gave no stated reasoning for his vote.
Chair Carrie Geitner spoke last and at greatest length, building her remarks around definitions. She opened with an analogy about being asked to picture a dog — everyone imagines a different animal, which is why, she said, the words in a code have to be read as written. “We can’t change the rules mid-game if we’re not getting our desired outcome.”
She concluded the applicant had met both pathways, including the convenience store definition itself, “because there is no size.” She told the room the word “small” had been removed from that definition in the last code update, crediting a question from Wysong, and argued its removal answered any question of intent. She cited the Fuel B’s convenience store, approved while she and Williams were on the Board, as a case where the same definition was applied to a site with no residential area around it.
Several of her remarks were addressed to the audience. “I would venture to say many people in this room didn’t understand what a quasi-judicial hearing was before they got involved in this,” she said, adding that her guess was that “people decided they didn’t want a Buc-ee’s, and then they heard what a C-1 was, and then decided it didn’t fit.” Of an argument made repeatedly during public comment, she said: “I heard things like common sense tells you, but that tells me not to look at the words.” And: “If you want to know if this is a convenience store, ask Google. But that’s not what we do here.”
She broke off more than once to quiet the room — “Come on, we can do this” and, later, “There are still rules of decorum in this room” — and said it was “so disappointing that people are not willing to actually hear the discussion.” She also said it “saddens me that some think that I’m not welcome in their neighborhood if I don’t live there,” and closed: “I believe you all came here in good faith, and I came here today in good faith as well.”
Before the vote, Wysong asked the chair to clarify what a yes and a no would mean. “A yes is to approve the appeal,” Geitner said. “A no is to not approve the appeal.” The clerk first announced the result as four to zero, then corrected it to four to one.
What happens next
The hearing was a classification proceeding. The County said throughout that it “does not approve or deny construction of a Buc-ee’s,” and that “any future development would still require additional County reviews and approvals, as applicable.” Under Section 4.4.1(G) of the Code, site development plan approval is required for all development before a building permit may be authorized.
Residents and organizations opposing the appeal argued during the process that the remaining approvals are largely administrative and would give the public no further hearing. The County has not adopted that characterization. Which reviews follow, and whether any of them carry a public hearing, is a question The Independent will report separately.
An administrative determination on use is ordinarily limited to the property identified in it and thereafter has the same effect as a provision of the Code as to that property. Either side may seek review of a quasi-judicial decision in district court under Rule 106(a)(4) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, which confines the court to the record made before the Board.
The Independent will publish fuller coverage of the hearing, the testimony and the Board’s reasoning.
Editor’s note: The editor of The Monument Independent submitted written comment on this appeal in an individual capacity as a resident of El Paso County, and that comment was published on this site as an opinion piece. The Independent has taken no institutional position on the appeal.
Sources & further reading
County record: APP261 project page, EDARP · Agenda, Board of County Commissioners (Land Use), Aug. 27, 2026 · ADM264 determination file · Buc-ee’s Update, El Paso County Planning and Community Development
I attended the El Paso County commissioners’ Buc-ee’s hearing, spoke, and stayed all day. I left deeply disappointed—not only by the approval, but by how our community was treated.
We brought facts, cited codes, and raised concerns about height restrictions, water, traffic, wildlife, and safety. We deserved clear answers about how those concerns were evaluated. Calling this development a “convenience store” did not answer our questions about its scale and impacts.
I found the comparison of residents to teenagers disrespectful, especially toward the seniors who spent the day participating. When a young boy spoke and we applauded, we were told to be quiet. I understand that hearings need order, but the way the audience was addressed felt scolding and dismissive.
We were allowed to speak, yet I did not feel heard. From my perspective, the commissioners gave Buc-ee’s interests more weight than the concerns of the people who will live with this decision.
I hope the Independent examines how the convenience-store classification and height restrictions were applied, and how residents’ testimony was addressed. Our community deserves respectful treatment and accountable government. I’m proud of everyone who showed up for Monument Hill.
THE BUC-EE’S QUESTION NOBODY SEEMS TO BE ASKING: WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR HOME VALUES?
I am deeply disappointed the El Paso County Commissioners voted 4–1 in favor of Buc-ee’s appeal.
I’m looking at this decision from another perspective today — not as a politician, developer or attorney, but as a homeowner and a former REALTOR.
I own a lake house on Lower Lake Road, only a few miles from the proposed Buc-ee’s site at I-25 and County Line Road.
My home is a little under $1 million today.
Part of what makes this property valuable is its location. I can live beside a lake in Monument and still have relatively convenient access north to Castle Rock and Denver.
So here’s my question:
What happens to residential property values when you put one of the largest travel centers in America a few miles away from an already challenging interstate corridor?
This isn’t speculation about whether Buc-ee’s will attract traffic. We already have a traffic study.
The independent traffic analysis commissioned during the earlier Palmer Lake process estimated the proposed Buc-ee’s would generate 10,947 weekday daily trips.
Yes, the study also says approximately 75% would be “pass-by” trips — motorists already traveling through the area — and concluded the surrounding intersections could operate acceptably with the developer’s proposed roadway improvements.
But those vehicles still have to leave I-25, travel through the interchange, enter the property and get back onto I-25.
And anybody who actually lives on Monument Hill knows there is another variable that looks very different on an engineer’s traffic model than it does through your windshield in January:
Winter.
Snow. Ice. Accidents. Jackknifed vehicles. Traffic backups. Interstate closures. It’s part of life here.
CDOT itself has acknowledged the existing problem. Its study of I-25 between Monument and C-470 says congestion, high speeds and climbing grades contribute to severe crashes and can result in long highway closures. CDOT already describes travel reliability along this corridor as a problem.
Now add a destination projected to generate nearly 11,000 vehicle trips per weekday at the County Line Road interchange.
Maybe the engineers are right and everything works beautifully. I read somewhere where Buc-ee’s said they would pick up the tab for the highway modifications. That work alone is going to take years and quite frankly, I am looking forward to more I-25 construction just as much as I look forward to getting another root canal.
But as a homeowner, I want somebody to answer a different question:
What does this do to the marketability and value of the homes surrounding it? For the poor homeowners right there on Beacon Lite Road and on the east side, with beautiful homes on the south side of County Line Road… how do you spell SHORT SALE? Home values in these areas will drop like rocks.
My home is a few miles away, as I live on Lake Woodmoor. Suppose you’re moving to Monument and you’re looking at a home in the $900,000 to $1.2 million home three years from now.
You’re considering Monument because you want the mountains, open space, lakes, quieter community and reasonable access to Denver.
Your REALTOR shows you two comparable homes.
One requires regularly navigating an interstate interchange serving a massive 24-hour travel center.
The other doesn’t.
Which house do you buy?
That’s the economic issue I don’t believe we’ve adequately discussed.
Property value isn’t simply whether Buc-ee’s is visible from your backyard. It’s whether congestion, traffic reliability, commercial development, noise, lighting and changing community character cause prospective buyers to perceive one neighborhood as less desirable than another.
Maybe Buc-ee’s won’t reduce our property values. But where is the independent residential real-estate impact analysis demonstrating that?
We’re talking about hundreds of millions — potentially billions — of dollars in residential property surrounding the Monument/Tri-Lakes area.
Before we fundamentally change one of the northern gateways to our community, homeowners deserve to know what that change could do to the largest investment many of us will ever make.
I’d especially like to hear from local REALTORS®, appraisers and homeowners:
Would proximity to this Buc-ee’s and its associated traffic make a Monument home more desirable, less desirable, or have no effect on what your buyers would pay?