Buc-ee’s Opponents Take the County’s Decision to Court

Tri-Lakes Preservation, the Monument-area nonprofit that has opposed a Buc-ee’s at Interstate 25 and County Line Road since the Palmer Lake annexation fight, has joined neighbors of the site in asking El Paso County District Court to overturn the county commissioners’ Aug. 27 decision allowing the travel center in the C-1 zoning district. The complaint, filed Sept. 24, the 28th day after the vote, argues that the project is a gas station, a use the district excludes.

Updated Sept. 25, 2026, 11:10 a.m.: This article now draws on the complaint itself, which a lawyer assisting TPI provided to The Independent, and adds the case number, the parties and the relief the plaintiffs seek.

Updated Sept. 25, 2026, 12:05 p.m.: Adds El Paso County’s response.

The case, No. 2026CV032336, is a complaint for judicial review under Rule 106(a)(4) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, the route for challenging a quasi-judicial decision by a local government. It was filed by Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a Denver law firm, for all the plaintiffs, and by Michael T. Rose for four of them. Tri-Lakes Preservation announced the filing to supporters in an email at 10:22 p.m. on Sept. 24. The group says it worked out “the substance and legal framework” of the complaint with local attorneys working pro bono, and then, with “community members and local organizations,” paid to retain Brownstein.

There are nine plaintiffs: three organizations and six residents who live near the site. Besides TPI, the organizations are The Community Voice, a nonprofit formed, the complaint says, “for the express purpose of representing neighbors and other stakeholders,” and the High Pines Patio Homes Homeowners Association, which represents 26 homes near the site. The residents say the project would affect access to their homes, traffic, noise, lighting and their views of the Front Range; two of them live directly across Beacon Lite Road from it. The defendants are the Board of County Commissioners and Buc-ee’s EPCO LLC, the applicant. The Independent sent questions to TPI, El Paso County and Buc-ee’s on the morning of Sept. 25. A lawyer assisting TPI answered and provided the complaint. El Paso County’s communications office said at 11:50 a.m. that the county had not been served with any lawsuit concerning the matter and “does not comment on matters with pending or active litigation.” Buc-ee’s had not responded when this update was published.

Three grounds

The decision under challenge is the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners’ 4-1 vote to grant Buc-ee’s appeal, which reversed the planning director’s July 1 finding that she could not classify the project under the county’s Land Development Code. The complaint sets out three claims, each asking the court to find that the Board “exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion”:

• that the project is a “Gas Station” under the Code, “a use prohibited in Zoning District C-1,” and that the Board’s refusal to classify it as one, “or even consider whether” it is one, misapplied the Code;
• that the Board skipped a step Section 5.3.6(C)(1) requires, finding the project met the two similar-use criteria without first determining that it “is similar to an expressly allowed use”;
• that the record is “devoid of evidentiary support” for the two findings the Board did make, in part because a convenience store sells to “the neighborhood in which it is located,” while the project “would cater to interstate travelers rather than the surrounding neighborhood.”

The Code defines a gas station as “a property where the retail sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, or other fuel for vehicles” takes place, with room for incidental accessory sales, minor repairs and washing of up to three vehicles. A convenience store is “an establishment for the purpose of offering for sale to the neighborhood in which it is located such items as groceries, ready to eat food, over the counter drugs, and sundries,” and “may include retail sale of gasoline and other petroleum products.” Gas stations are not among the uses the C-1 district allows. That omission is why the label carried the whole hearing.

The complaint asks the court, in the alternative, to reverse the decision and order the Board to find that the project is a gas station; to vacate it and send it back for the Board to decide that question; to vacate it and send it back to apply both parts of the similar-use test; or to reverse it and order a finding that the project is not permitted under that test. It does not ask the court to halt the project while the case is pending. TPI’s announcement acknowledged that Rule 106 cases “are challenging because courts give deference to local government decisions,” and said the group expects Buc-ee’s to file a motion to dismiss, “a common step in litigation of this type.”

What the Board put in writing

Rule 106 limits a court to deciding whether a body “exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body.” Where a court finds the body “has failed to make findings of fact or conclusions of law necessary for a review of its action,” the rule lets it send the matter back for them. The Board’s formal account of its decision is Resolution 26-260. It runs to two pages, is dated Aug. 27, carries Chair Carrie Geitner’s signature and the clerk’s attestation, and was recorded with the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder at 9:20 a.m. on Aug. 28.

It makes five findings. The first three are procedural: notice was proper, the appeal was timely, and the hearing was “extensive and complete.” The other two repeat the two tests in Section 5.3.6(C)(1), the Code’s rule for allowing a use it does not list:

4. The function, performance characteristics, and location requirements of the proposed Buc-ee’s use is consistent with the purpose and description of the zoning district where it is proposed.

5. The proposed Buc-ee’s use is compatible with the uses specifically allowed in the C-1 zone district, and similar in characteristics such as traffic and parking generation, noise, glare, vibration, and dust.

It then grants the appeal and resolves “that the proposed Buc-ee’s use, as described by the Applicant in its appeal, is an allowed use in the C-1 zone district.”

So the written decision rests on the similar-use test. The resolution contains no finding that the project is a convenience store, and it does not name the allowed C-1 use the project is found similar to. That matches the motion. As The Independent reported from the hearing, Vice Chair Lauren Nelson said before moving to grant that she would “focus more on the pathway of whether it meets similar use to listed allowed uses within the C-1 zone district.” Geitner said from the dais that she believed the project also met the convenience-store definition, “because there is no size.” That view is in the hearing record but not in the findings.

The complaint reads the resolution the same way. It says the resolution “did not address” whether the project is a gas station or a convenience store, or whether it “is similar to an expressly allowed use.” It also says Buc-ee’s compared the project to “all permitted uses” in C-1 at once rather than to a single one, drawing on general-retail, supercenter and theater scenarios, and notes that an outdoor theater is a special use in C-1, not an allowed one. How a court treats findings written in the language of Section 5.3.6 is a question for the court.

A letter already in the file

Brownstein was involved before the vote. The county’s file on the appeal, APP261, holds a letter to the commissioners dated Aug. 24 and signed by Caitlin S. Quander, a Brownstein attorney. It asks the Board to “deny Buc-ee’s appeal and uphold the Determination.” Its arguments anticipate the complaint, on which Quander is the first attorney listed. It says Buc-ee’s “serves primarily traveling customers” rather than “the neighborhood in which it is located”; that the project’s 120 fueling positions and 62,000-square-foot canopy make fuel sales something other than incidental; and that the project “has just as much – if not more – in common with uses like ‘Gas Station’ and ‘Truck Stop,’ which are not permitted in the C-1 Zone District, as it does with a Convenience Store.”

The letter was before the Board. Blaine M. Tracy of Brownstein emailed it to the planning department at 11:59 a.m. on Aug. 24, asking that copies go into “the Commissioners’ packets,” and it appears in the seventh bundle of public correspondence the county compiled for the hearing and posted to the file on the morning of Aug. 27. The letter does not say whom the firm represented.

The clock

Rule 106(b) requires a complaint “not later than 28 days after the final decision of the body or officer.” The Colorado Supreme Court has called the period “a strict jurisdictional limitation,” as The Independent reported in August. The Board voted on Aug. 27, and the resolution was recorded on Aug. 28. Sept. 24 was the 28th day after the vote. The Independent’s Aug. 28 account of the hearing called that date the conservative outside limit. A filing that day is inside the window on either reading of when the decision became final.

The project in the meantime

The county has said its decision covered only the classification. Its post-hearing statement says the ruling “does not, by itself, approve construction or operation” of the travel center, and that “subsequent applications and approvals will proceed through the applicable County processes.” Those processes start with a site development plan, which the county has said will be reviewed by staff and will not return to the commissioners.

None appears in the county’s records yet. On Sept. 25 its public list of active development files (EDARP, 329 open files) carried no Buc-ee’s site development plan. The county’s communications office said the same day that “Buc-ee’s has not filed any plans with the County.” The only active file on a Buc-ee’s parcel is CDR261, the Beacon Lite Road stockpile.

Who is paying

TPI is raising money for the case. The email asks supporters to donate to cover “legal fees, court costs, and other expenses,” and describes the group as a 501(c)(3) whose donations are tax-deductible. This is TPI’s second time in court over the project. In January 2025 it backed a suit that Integrity Matters and other plaintiffs brought against the Town of Palmer Lake over the annexation eligibility of the same land. When the annexation request was withdrawn in March 2025, the groups said the withdrawal mooted the case. The request was refiled, Palmer Lake’s trustees found it eligible for annexation in May 2025, and a district court dismissed the suit in October 2025. The annexation application was withdrawn a second time on Feb. 4, 2026.

About Tri-Lakes Preservation

Tri-Lakes Preservation, Inc. is a Colorado nonprofit corporation, formed in January 2025 and based in Monument. The IRS recognizes it as a 501(c)(3) public charity, so donations to it are tax-deductible. Its website says it works “to preserve the natural beauty and ecological integrity of the Tri-Lakes area through sustainable practices, responsible growth, public education, and government accountability.” Besides Buc-ee’s, it lists the Monument Ridge East residential development among its current projects. The complaint says it has about 800 members.

About Buc-ee’s

Buc-ee’s is a chain of highway travel centers that says it has been in business since 1982; store No. 1 is in Lake Jackson, Texas. Its locations page lists 57 stores in 14 states, 36 of them in Texas. Its only Colorado store is No. 60, in Johnstown, whose approved plans closely match the County Line Road proposal: 74,000 square feet in both, with 116 fueling positions in Johnstown against 120 proposed here. The company calls its 75,593-square-foot store in Luling, Texas, the world’s largest convenience store. The applicant in the El Paso County case is Buc-ee’s EPCO, LLC.

Sources & further reading

The Independent’s own coverage: Commissioners Grant Buc-ee’s Appeal, 4-1, the initial report on the vote · Eight Hours at Centennial Hall: How Buc-ee’s Won Its Appeal, the full account of the hearing, the commissioners’ stated reasons and the Rule 106 clock

County record: Resolution 26-260, recorded Aug. 28, 2026 · APP261 file, EDARP · Staff hearing presentation, Aug. 27, 2026 (Code definitions and Section 5.3.6(C)(1)) · BOCC staff report, Public Correspondence Part 7 (Brownstein transmittal and letter, p. 202) · Colorado Secretary of State business record 20251019492, Tri-Lakes Preservation, Inc., via the Colorado Information Marketplace · IRS Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Colorado extract, EIN 33-2649716 · Buc-ee’s, About · Buc-ee’s, Locations · Buc-ee’s Update, El Paso County Planning and Community Development · EDARP active projects list

Filings and correspondence: C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) Complaint for Judicial Review, Tri-Lakes Preservation, Inc. et al. v. Board of County Commissioners for El Paso County et al., El Paso County District Court No. 2026CV032336, filed Sept. 24, 2026 (copy provided by plaintiffs’ counsel) · Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck letter to the Board, Aug. 24, 2026 · Tri-Lakes Preservation, “Stop Buc-ee’s: Legal Challenged Filed,” email to supporters, Sept. 24, 2026 · Tri-Lakes Preservation, Buc-ee’s page (2025 Palmer Lake litigation statements)

Law: Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 106 · Brown v. Walker Commercial, Inc., 2022 CO 57, as quoted in The Independent’s Aug. 28 hearing account

Methodology

The account of the lawsuit comes from the complaint, which was read in full (24 pages), and from Tri-Lakes Preservation’s Sept. 24 email, also read in full. The copy of the complaint was provided to The Independent on Sept. 25 by a lawyer assisting TPI. Its caption does not show a case number; the number comes from that lawyer’s email. Colorado district court filings are not publicly searchable online, so the docket itself was not checked. The complaint lists the individual plaintiffs’ home addresses, which The Independent does not publish. In a footnote supporting claims about property values and taxes, the complaint cites The Independent’s Aug. 11 article on an opposition group’s fiscal-impact report.

Resolution 26-260 was read in full from the recorded copy in the county’s file. That copy is a two-page scan whose text layer misreads the recording stamp, so the recording time and reception number were read from the page image. The Brownstein letter was read in full (seven pages), and its transmittal email and place in the hearing correspondence were confirmed in the county’s Public Correspondence Part 7 (page 202 of 615), posted to the APP261 file on Aug. 27. Its three exhibits, 2025 reports on traffic, wildlife and water (pp. 8–51 of the same file), were not read and are not relied on here. The Code definitions and the text of Section 5.3.6(C)(1) are quoted from the county staff’s hearing presentation. The convenience-store definition and Section 5.3.6 were also checked against the county’s published Land Development Code (Supplement 3, August 2024). The copy of that code on file lacks the page carrying the gas-station definition, so that definition rests on the staff presentation alone. Rule 106 is quoted from the full text of the rule. The characterization of the deadline as jurisdictional is the Colorado Supreme Court’s, from Brown v. Walker Commercial, as quoted in The Independent’s earlier reporting; the opinion was not re-read for this article. The day count uses calendar days from Aug. 27. Whether the 28-day period ran from the vote or from recording is a legal question this article does not decide. The statement that no site development plan appears rests on the county’s public active-projects list as fetched on Sept. 25, 2026. TPI’s corporate status comes from the Colorado Secretary of State’s business-entity data (entity type “Domestic Nonprofit Corporation,” formed Jan. 5, 2025, in good standing) and its tax status from the IRS Exempt Organizations Business Master File for Colorado, updated Sept. 7, 2026 (subsection 501(c)(3), ruling February 2025, contributions deductible, public charity). The Buc-ee’s store count was taken from the company’s locations page on Sept. 25, 2026, and checked against the page’s own totals for stores with diesel exhaust fluid (38) and car washes (12).