Queensbury Planning Board continues review of proposed West Mountain resort; residents press for stormwater, water-use and zoning answers

The Queensbury Planning Board on Feb. 13 continued its preliminary review of a proposed Planned Resort Development (PRD) at West Mountain — a multi‑phase proposal from Apex Capital LLC/Mountain Top Ventures LLC that would rezone portions of the ski area for year‑round resort, residential and commercial uses.

The Board did not vote to approve any zoning or site plans. Chair Stephen Traver said the meeting’s purpose was to determine whether the applicant’s concept materials are complete enough for the Town Board to consider a zoning change; the Town Board has elected to be the lead agency for the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). “The Apex Capital project … cannot be built, as it stands right now, without the Town making some changes to accommodate that project,” Traver said, adding the Town Board will handle formal SEQRA hearings and many permit reviews.

Why it matters: The application asks to rezone Recreation Commercial land to permit a 254‑acre Planned Resort Development across multiple parcels totaling 365.43 acres. The proposal includes an Alpine Village with mixed retail and residences; 56 townhouses; an 80‑room hotel with banquet, spa and athletic club; renovation of an existing lodge; an outdoor amphitheater; and 65 single‑family homes. Neighbors and residents told the Board they want firm answers about stormwater, wetlands or streams, traffic routing, visual impacts and how snowmaking and wastewater will be handled before any approvals move forward.

Applicant presentation and water use

Applicant attorney Jon Lapper and representative Spencer Montgomery laid out the team’s timeline and intent, describing a phased build‑out that Montgomery said is intended to keep West Mountain operational and financially viable. The applicant said the project is intended to be phased over many years and would not proceed to construction without detailed technical approvals, including Town engineer sign‑offs and any relevant DEC or state permits.

On snowmaking and water, Montgomery told the Board the mountain currently uses about “90 to 110 million gallons a year” and that the project would not raise seasonal net water use. He said the proposal seeks faster delivery of snowmaking water (discussing 3,000 versus 6,000 gallons‑per‑minute capacities) and potential use of a lined on‑site reservoir as a reserve. “We’re not intending on adding any more snow to the Mountain,” Montgomery said, and described plans to use untreated Hudson River water for snowmaking so the operator would not have to rely on potable town water for that purpose.

Public questions and written comments

Residents used the hearing to press procedural and technical questions and to place several written comments on record. Recurrent concerns included: the presence of a DEC‑identified stream that crosses the Phase I area and then flows under West Mountain Road into the Bedford Close neighborhood; recent reports from neighbors that that stream has reduced summer flow; whether any stream piping or bed relocation is proposed and whether DEC permits would be required; stormwater design and the potential for increased runoff to adjacent properties; and requests to maintain slope exclusions in density calculations (the applicant seeks to avoid subtracting slopes over 20% from density calculations, which residents say would materially increase allowable development area).

Resident Greg Hydock asked whether any construction would begin soon; Traver and the applicant said the multi‑phase build‑out would be a long process, not immediate. Several written submissions read into the record said the project’s density and location of structures near the protected stream require more detailed engineering before any zoning change is advanced. One letter from Tom and Jodi Cottone noted the stream “has not dried up in 30 years and in the last 12–18 months the amount of water is much less,” and asked how applicants propose to avoid downstream flooding impacts.

Town role and next steps

Senior Planner Stuart Baker and staff emphasized the PRD request is governed by the Town Code (Article 179‑12B) and that some proposed changes to subdivision density rules in Recreation Commercial zones would have broader implications for other parcels in the zone. Baker confirmed state agencies likely will be involved in SEQRA review because the proposal contemplates a new water supply line and a package sewage‑treatment plant discharging to the Hudson River, both of which could require state permits.

Board members and Town officials repeatedly stressed that the Town Board, as SEQRA lead agency, will set the scope of environmental review and that many detailed technical approvals — stormwater/HydroCAD analyses, traffic studies, permit applications to DEC or EPA/NPDES (if discharge to federal waters is involved), and design level site plans — will be considered later in the process. Deputy Town Supervisor and Ward 3 Councilperson Mike Dixon, present in the audience, said Town Board members are listening and will weigh density, height, stormwater and traffic issues as the application advances.

Applicant responses and financing note

The applicant team said development revenues would be used in part to support mountain operations; Montgomery said the ownership envisions a partnership structure that keeps West Mountain financially tied to the resort’s success. He said some infrastructure improvements (water delivery and a lined reserve pond) would be necessary to maintain reliable snowmaking in low‑snow years but reiterated that the proposal does not increase the net seasonal volume of water used for snowmaking.

What was decided

The Planning Board took no action on zoning or SEQRA tonight. Members agreed to schedule a follow‑up special meeting in March to continue the Board’s completeness review and to prepare a memorandum of outstanding technical questions and recommendations for the Town Board. The Board adjourned by recorded vote at the end of the session.

Next procedural steps

The applicant must supply the technical studies requested by staff (stormwater/HydroCAD, traffic analyses, water and wastewater designs and any required permits). The Town Board, as SEQRA lead, will determine whether the information is sufficient to proceed with environmental review, hold public hearings and, after any required mitigation or design changes, the project would return to the Planning Board for site‑plan review of specific phases.

The Planning Board’s review will focus on whether the concept plans satisfy zoning criteria for a PRD, while the Town Board will manage SEQRA and any requested changes to subdivision/density provisions. Residents who raised concerns at the hearing said they will continue to monitor the record and urge the Board and Town to require concrete stormwater and stream protections before any zoning change is approved.