Residents urge county to block Buc-ee’s travel center, cite water, traffic and wildlife concerns

A sustained public-comment period on June 23 centered on a contested proposal for a Buc-ee’s travel center and related concerns about Beacon Light Road. Residents told commissioners the project was being improperly classified to avoid higher-level review and that local roads and water supplies would bear lasting costs.

Lynette Preseta, speaking about Beacon Light Road, said the county designated the corridor a rural connector even though commercial traffic is planned, and warned the county — and ultimately taxpayers — could face liability for road failures if the roadway is used by heavy commercial traffic. "Should the county proceed with allowing or facilitating commercial use on a roadway not designed, designated, or approved for such resulting damages, injuries, or failures will rest with the county," Preseta said, later adding, "No one wants to be charged with negligent homicide." Her remarks focused on legal and financial responsibility tied to roadway standards.

Several speakers said Buc-ee’s is being presented administratively as a convenience store despite plans that speakers described as a "74,000 square foot mega travel center" with more than 100 pumps and 24/7 operations. Debbie Hall, a Monument-area resident, called the proposal incompatible with the site and urged the board to reclassify it for full traffic, environmental, and infrastructure review. "Labeling it otherwise as an attempt to exploit zoning loopholes and avoid the full traffic studies, environmental reviews, and infrastructure requirements that should apply to a project of the size and intensity," Hall said.

Other commenters raised groundwater concerns for residential wells. Wayne Rice referenced local reporting about projected water use and said regional drought and well failures make the proposal risky for nearby well users; he cited a press figure of roughly 1,119,000 gallons per year reported in local coverage. Speakers also pointed to prior municipal proceedings: Palmer Lake’s planning commission and trustees previously rejected or withdrew annexation related to versions of this project, and residents asked that those records and the planning process follow any county consideration.

Speakers urged the board to require rezoning where necessary, to ensure all records and prior proceedings are considered, and to hold applicants to the definition of convenience store vs. travel center in the county code. Commissioners did not take a vote on the project at this meeting; the public comment period served to place concerns on record in advance of planning and administrative determinations.

The meeting transcript records numerous citizens raising the same concerns: road adequacy, water supplies for residents on wells, wildlife and light pollution near a recently funded wildlife overpass, and a perception that administrative determinations have limited public opportunity for input. Several speakers announced plans to pursue appeals of administrative approvals if the county proceeds without full public hearings.