El Paso County commissioners approve Buc‑ee's use determination for Monument Hill site

The El Paso County Board of County Commissioners voted 4–1 on Aug. 27 to grant an administrative appeal by Buc‑ee's EPCO LLC, reversing a July 1 staff determination that the company’s proposed 74,000‑square‑foot travel center raised an unresolved question about whether it qualifies as a “convenience store” under the county land development code. Vice Chair Nelson moved to grant the appeal and Commissioner Applegate seconded; Commissioners Nelson, Applegate, Williams and Chair voted to approve while Commissioner Wysong dissented.

Megan Harrington, the county planning director, explained to the board that the administrative determination process is limited to classifying the use under the land development code and that a successful classification does not by itself approve site construction. "The applicant carries the burden of demonstrating that the application satisfies the applicable approval criteria," Harrington told the board during the staff presentation. The board's action, however, means Buc‑ee's may proceed to the next administrative step — submission of a site development plan and detailed technical reviews (traffic, drainage, utilities) if the company chooses to do so.

Opponents emphasized scale and impacts during several hours of public comment. "Simply put, Buc‑ee's is not a convenience store as defined in your code," said Caitlin Quander, a nearby landowner, summarizing the opposition's argument that a 120‑pump fueling array and 790 parking spaces make the project a regional travel center rather than a neighborhood‑serving convenience store. Supporters told commissioners the proposed use fits the literal code language and noted the parcel has been zoned C‑1 for decades.

The board’s approval does not authorize construction. Planning staff said detailed traffic, drainage and infrastructure analyses will be required at the site‑plan stage and that any off‑site roadway or utility improvements required to mitigate impacts would generally be addressed as conditions of site development approval and as developer obligations. The record for this quasi‑judicial hearing remains the legal basis for any subsequent appeals.