After being voted out by the town of Palmer Lake, Buc-ee’s is trying to get in through the back door. You can easily help stop them from pulling 1000s of gallons of water a day from El Paso County. All you need to do is copy, paste and send this =>
here’s the google doc version if it’s easier
To: megganherington@elpasoco.com, HollyWilliams@elpasoco.com, CarrieGeitner@elpasoco.com, BillWysong@elpasoco.com, CoryApplegate@elpasoco.com, LaurenNelson@elpasoco.com, KennyHodges@elpasoco.com
Cc: mlakind@tomgov.org, sking@tomgov.org, sabbott@tomgov.org, csmith@tomgov.org, lkronick@tomgov.org, kkimple@tomgov.org, mfiorito@tomgov.org, eharris@palmer-lake.org, rmoseley@palmer-lake.org, jmarble@palmer-lake.org, mbeeson@palmer-lake.org, ajurka@palmer-lake.org, governorpolis@state.co.us, natasha_hutson@bennet.senate.gov, jess_cohen@hickenlooper.senate.gov, jarvis.caldwell.house@coleg.gov, matthew.smith1@mail.house.gov, integritymatterscos@gmail.com, contact@trilakespreservation.org, savannah.eller@gazette.com, Tony.Keith@koaa.com, Noah.Caplan@koaa.com, news@koaa.com, sam.page@krdo.com, ASack@kxrm.com, news@fox21news.com, news@kktv.com, achalfin@krcc.org, news@krcc.org, news@7news.com, newstips@denver7.com, spencer.soicher@9news.com, newstips@9news.com, tips@kdvr.com, newstips@thedenverchannel.com, jalvarado@denverpost.com, newsroom@denverpost.com, oliviaprentzel@coloradosun.com, newsroom@coloradosun.com, Karin.Brulliard@washpost.com, jim.carlton@wsj.com, news-tips@nytimes.com, tips@cnn.com, tips@nbcuni.com, news.tips@abc.com, LBergman@newsnationnow.com, tips@thefp.com, talkshow@aol.com
Note to citizens: It’s important to copy the press and community organizations for transparency and public accountability, so this decision is made on the record and in public view.
Re: Objection to the Buc-ee's Administrative Determination and Demand for a Public Hearing — C-1 Zone, I-25 & County Line Road
Dear Director Herington and Commissioners:
I object to any administrative determination classifying the proposed Buc-ee's as a permitted use in the C-1 zoning district, and I ask that this matter be referred to the Board of County Commissioners for a public hearing. The application asks the County to allow, by a closed-door administrative determination, a use the Land Development Code does not permit in C-1.
1. A gas station is not a permitted use in C-1. Table 5-1 lists "Gas Station" as an allowed use in the CC, CR, CS, C-2, and M districts — but not in C-1. Under § 1.6.6 and § 5.3.6(C)(2), listing a use in some districts "shall be deemed to be an exclusion of the use from any other zoning district in which the use is not listed." A facility with 60 dispensers and 120 fueling positions is a gas station. "Convenience Store" and "Gas Station" are separately defined and separately listed uses; the convenience-store definition's "may include retail sale of gasoline" covers incidental fuel and cannot be used to place into C-1 a use the Code deliberately excluded from it. Read literally, as § 1.6.1 requires, this use is prohibited in C-1.
The application tries to escape this prohibition by misreading the Gas Station definition — three ways, all on page 5. First, it argues Buc-ee's is not a gas station because it "will not provide vehicle repairs, oil changes, accessory installation, [or] car washing." But § 1.15 does not require any of those services; it lists them as things a gas station "may include, as an incidental use." Their absence is irrelevant. Second, the application asserts the Code defines a gas station as a use "primarily oriented toward the petroleum fueling and servicing of motor vehicles" — a "primary orientation" requirement that appears nowhere in § 1.15. Third, it claims the definition "expressly limits retail activity to the incidental sale of vehicle accessories," which it does not. What actually defines a gas station under § 1.15 is the retail sale of gasoline and diesel for vehicles — which Buc-ee's plainly does, at 120 fueling positions. Read as the Code is written, this is a gas station, and gas stations are not allowed in C-1.
2. The use does not meet the Code's "Convenience Store" definition. That definition (§ 1.15) requires an establishment serving "the neighborhood in which it is located," and the Code defines a neighborhood as "primarily residential areas." Buc-ee's represents that the store will serve the surrounding neighborhood (pages 2 and 4). It will not. This project is a regional tourist destination, not a neighborhood store — and the company says so itself:
At the grand opening of the company's recently opened Goodyear, Arizona travel center — a store identical to the one proposed here (74,000 square feet, 120 fueling positions) — Buc-ee's own store-opening manager called it "a destination," comparing it to Disney World (Arizona Daily Star, June 22, 2026).
The Arizona Republic reported that hotels nearest that store sold out for opening weekend, and the Arizona Daily Star documented customers driving in from Oregon, Minnesota, and other states, with Nevada and California plates filling the lot.
According to figures Buc-ee's provided to the City of Springfield, Missouri, the company estimates roughly six million customers a year, with 88% traveling more than 20 miles to reach the store (City of Springfield official website; Springfield Daily Citizen).
A store the company itself markets as a multi-state destination, drawing customers who travel hundreds of miles and book hotels, does not serve "the neighborhood in which it is located." It cannot be shoehorned into the one C-1 use the application relies on.
3. This decision belongs at a public hearing, not behind closed doors. Deciding the permitted uses of a specific parcel by applying the Code's definitions to specific facts is a discretionary judgment — the Code's own § 5.3.6(B) describes it as an "analysis and comparison of various code provisions … as opposed to a nondiscretionary review." A decision of this consequence, affecting the whole region, requires public notice and a hearing — and the County itself stated in February 2026 that "a public hearing is required to determine the use classification" for a project like this. A no-notice administrative determination, issued with no opportunity for the public to be heard, is the wrong vehicle.
4. The application is also unreliable on its face. Beyond the violations above, it repeatedly misstates the Code and the facts — including a "full list of allowed C-1 uses" (page 8) that omits Convenience Store, the very use it claims is permitted; fuel-footprint percentages calculated on shifting denominators (pages 2 and 6); and a landscaping requirement misstated as 5% when the Code requires more (page 2). A record this flawed is one more reason the determination must be tested at a public hearing rather than accepted on paper.
I respectfully request that the County:
Decline to issue any administrative determination on the paper record;
Refer this matter to the Board of County Commissioners for a full, noticed public hearing;
Recognize that a 120-position fuel facility is a gas station, which the Code excludes from C-1; and
Require the applicant to use the proper public process — a rezoning to C-2, or special-use/PUD review — with full notice and hearing.
The public is entitled to be heard before a use the Code excludes from C-1 is allowed in by administrative determination. Please make this decision in public, on the record.
Respectfully,
[Your full name]
[Your address / neighborhood, El Paso County]