Dozens of residents, small-business owners and scientists used the city council’s public-comment period Tuesday to press officials to reopen or more closely review approvals tied to a proposed Buc-ee's travel center on I‑10.

Speakers cited procedural concerns dating to 2016, objections to an approved 75‑foot sign, changes in the project's scope since the original agreement, and traffic, water and air‑quality risks they say were not sufficiently studied.

The comments mattered because many speakers said the development’s footprint, traffic and lighting could change how visitors use Boerne and could put nearby neighborhoods and water resources at risk.

Jay Pennington, a resident of 304 Horseshoe Bend, said the community should think through “the ripple effect” of major projects and warned Buc-ee's could “kill the night sky,” consume large amounts of water and divert travelers away from downtown. “They're not going to support mom‑and‑pop businesses if you put a Buc‑ee’s right there,” Pennington said.

Ruth Bibb, speaking on behalf of a friend who researched the matter, alleged procedural failures in the project's permitting, including internal emails and a claim that Buc‑ee’s name was withheld during an August council approval. Bibb argued the handling may have violated the Texas Open Meetings Act and urged the council to “demand Buc‑ee’s fully mitigate the traffic perils” and to void the 75‑foot sign permit if necessary.

Dana Mathis, who cited provisions of the city’s Unified Development Code, told the council the 75‑foot sign permit had expired and that the project’s scope has changed since 2016 — from 90 pumps in the original deal to as many as 140 in more recent plans. “Our UDC code, section 2‑4.a.5.b, clearly states that the 2019 vested rights no longer apply because of all these scope changes,” Mathis told the council.

Business owner Mark Sierra and other small‑business advocates warned Buc‑ee’s could draw customers away from downtown and local shops. “Whenever I drive to Buc‑ee’s, why the hell am I gonna go to any other place around the town if I can get it all in one stop shop?” Sierra said.

Dr. Alex Rudd summarized public‑health and environmental concerns, pointing to research on benzene and volatile organic compounds at high‑volume fueling sites and citing hydrogeology work that shows possible karst connections from the site toward the Edwards Aquifer recharge area. “If you ever have an opportunity to tell Buc‑ee’s to move on, I recommend it, please,” Rudd said.

Other speakers requested an independent peer review of the traffic impact analysis and said the city should ensure any intersection and feeder‑road improvements are completed before the site opens. Denise Brickmiller noted the developer’s updated traffic study projects up to 15,000 additional vehicle trips per day on peak days and warned some driveway movements could face extreme delays without further mitigation.

Several speakers also said the project no longer includes the original retail pad sites and therefore no longer delivers the same local sales‑tax revenue the 2016 agreement envisioned. Trey Ackerman asked the council to reopen the agreement and renegotiate incentives if the project’s revenue profile has changed.

Council did not take immediate action during the public‑comment period. The comments were heard during the allotted public‑comment agenda item; council members did not publicly respond to specific demands during that time.

The record of public comments in the meeting transcript shows repeated requests that the city: (1) verify whether vested‑rights protections still apply given project changes; (2) require updated traffic, drainage and environmental studies and an independent peer review; (3) deny or revisit the 75‑foot sign permit; and (4) ensure compliance with dark‑sky ordinances and other city standards before construction or site work proceeds.

Council members later continued the rest of the meeting business, including separate agenda items on housing tax‑credit support and the tax‑levy roll.