Queensbury board opens public hearing on West Mountain planned-resort proposal; residents press stormwater, traffic and noise concerns

Queensbury — The Queensbury Planning Board on Jan. 16 opened a public hearing on a proposal by Apex Capital/Mountain Top Ventures to rezone roughly 365.43 acres at West Mountain from Recreation Commercial to a Planned Resort Development (PRD), a move that would allow an Alpine Village with retail, about 126 apartments, 56 townhouses, an 80‑room hotel and 65 single‑family homes.

Chairman Stephen Traver told attendees the board’s role at the special meeting was a completeness review; the Town Board will serve as Lead Agency for the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and will conduct the formal environmental review. The Planning Board said it will not grant approvals tonight and will revisit site‑plan details later when environmental and engineering reviews are complete.

The applicant’s team — led in the meeting by attorney Jon Zapper and Studio A site planner Jeff Anthony — described the project as a five‑phase, roughly 10‑year buildout concentrated at the mountain’s base, leaving most of the ridgeline wooded. Anthony said Phase I would center on an Alpine Village with a three‑story lodge, ground‑floor retail, stacked apartments above and a new high‑speed chairlift; parking would be on‑site, including structured parking under some apartment buildings. “The project is designed to be built in five phases over a 10 year period or more,” Anthony said.

Owner Spencer Montgomery framed the proposal as a way to stabilize West Mountain’s finances and create a year‑round “ski and stay” destination. Montgomery described prior investments in lifts, piping and lighting and said the plan is intended to fund infrastructure such as a new lift and pump house while keeping the mountain’s recreational activities intact. “We will be a partner in the development,” Montgomery said, describing a revenue arrangement that would reduce reliance on lift‑ticket sales.

Residents and nearby property owners used the public‑comment period to press a range of concerns. Bedford Close resident Dwayne Zuhlke told the board he had reviewed the applicant’s materials and argued the submission “is lacking in specifics” on noise controls for an amphitheater, festival uses, and how wastewater and ridgeline home placements would be managed. “I don't know how the Planning Board can approve any variance to zoning without knowing exactly what is planned,” Zuhlke said.

Other common concerns included stormwater and groundwater impacts. Travis Whitehead cited test pits and a locally mapped principal aquifer and a protected stream that runs through Bedford Close, and he said the submission underestimates how much water snowmaking and runoff could add to downstream neighborhoods. In response, applicant engineer Matt Huntington said state and local stormwater rules require post‑construction runoff not exceed predevelopment flows and that the team’s test pits identified soils suitable for infiltration in many areas; he said detailed stormwater design will be refined as phases are engineered and reviewed by the Town’s designated engineer.

Traffic and pedestrian safety were frequently raised: critics said the traffic study relied on older counts and did not fully analyze shortcutting through neighborhood streets such as Revere Road, and some commenters questioned whether Pitcher Road and adjacent intersections can handle peak events. Neighbors also raised habitat concerns, naming the Kanner blue butterfly and whip‑poor‑will as species they believe could be affected, and several written submissions argued rezoning would change the area’s rural character.

Planning staff and the applicant said many of the issues cited by speakers are precisely the types of impacts the Town Board will examine in SEQR and that additional, more detailed engineering will be provided as the project advances. Traver and the applicant’s team emphasized the multi‑stage review that will follow any zoning referral, including Town‑engineer review of stormwater, traffic and visual impacts.

Procedurally, the Planning Board voted to add a special meeting on Feb. 13, 2025 to continue the completeness review and potentially refer the application to the Town Board for SEQR. The resolution to schedule the Feb. 13 meeting was introduced by Fritz Stefanzick, seconded by Kimberly Bullard and adopted unanimously (Ayes: Warren Longacker, Ellen McDevitt, Kimberly Bullard, [Stark], Thomas Uncher, Fritz Stefanzick, Stephen Traver; Absent: Brad Magowan). The board also moved to adjourn the Jan. 16 session; the public hearing will remain open for future meetings.

What’s next: The Town Board, as SEQR lead, will review the environmental materials and determine whether further study or an environmental impact statement is required; the Planning Board will later review site‑plan details, stormwater design, visual/no‑cut limits and other engineering particulars for individual phases. The applicant’s plans and supporting materials have been posted on the Town website for public review.