Glens Falls Chronicle Serving the Glens Falls/Lake George region; Warren, Washington and northern Saratoga counties since 1980
By Ben Westcott, Chronicle Staff Writer
The Queensbury Planning Board voted unanimously on April 10 to recommend to the Town Board that the zoning at 59 West Mountain Rd. be changed from Residential Commercial to a Planned Resort Development to accommodate the Woods at West Mountain alpine ski village proposal. The decision came after the panel held six special meetings on the project.
But there were reservations.
“I’ve been struggling with this,” said member McDevitt. “I think that as neighbors, living through all of this for 10 years, it’s going to be difficult….I also, though, understand the predicament that the mountain is in, in terms of viability.”
“I think site plan review will be very, very important in terms of density and all kinds of other things in terms of the retail development and all of the other development that goes on the base of the mountain,” she added.
“I agree,” Chairman Traver said. “This part of our review is probably the easiest part of the project.”
He said it will be more difficult “when we get down to the nitty gritty and we’re doing the analysis of it in site plan.”
The plan next goes to the Town Board for approval, then to the Planning Board again for site plan review.
The Woods at West Mountain project calls for 252 apartments, 64 condominium units, 56 duplex units, 65 single-family custom homes, an 80-room hotel, and a retail plaza at the base of the ski area on a 60-acre tract of undeveloped land. It’s a five-phase proposal that would be built over about a decade.
Estimated cost for the development is $190-million.
The two letters read aloud during the public comment portion of the meeting both raised concerns about the project.
Robert Jones of West Mountain Road fretted about impact on the environment and the quality of life for current residents as to stormwater runoff, sewage into the aquifer, traffic, pedestrian activities, noise, and crime.
In the second letter read aloud, Gretchen Steffan of Buckbee Road wrote, “This project is a dream right now with the local and out-of-area investors. Dreams are important, but so are the dreams of the current citizens who are wary of a project which is impacting their own dreams and the lives they have created as citizens in the town of Queensbury….
“Residents fear that the biggest investments of their adult lives, which have included their homes, their community and their quality of life, will be negatively impacted.”
Ms. Steffan said the “significant disturbance on the mountain will forever change it,” and “a forested mountainside is very different from a developed one.”
Speaking with The Chronicle since the meeting, West Mountain co-owner Spencer Montgomery insisted their project is environmentally and good for the community.
“The major issues that we’ve been looking at are traffic and stormwater, and we’ve already spent a lot of money on engineering, and that will all be fleshed out when we go back to the Planning Board,” he said.
“New York State law dictates that we cannot increase runoff off the property. People are concerned, I understand it, but it’s not like we’re going to get a pass,” Mr. Montgomery said.
“We did a preliminary stormwater plan, and we did test pits to prove that we had, at a large factor, more than adequate soil to manage the impermeable surfaces.”
He said Mr. Jones’s contention about sewage into the aquifer is “completely untrue….There will be an underground onsite treatment plant with a building over it, and the cleaned effluent from that would be directionally drilled to the Hudson [River]. That’s the exact same thing that the Glens Falls Sewer Treatment Plant does.”
In his conversation with The Chronicle, Mr. Montgomery said, “We aren’t clearcutting up to people’s back doors. We butt up against largely uninhabited land on the north side of us that’s part of the APA [Adirondack Park]. That’s our border. I think we’ve been very conscientious.”
Despite the negative bent of some of the public comment periods, Mr. Montgomery said, “We feel we enjoy large support from the community.”
“We’ve probably had five or six individuals consistently speak negatively about the project at every meeting,” he said. “We’re in a very large town here, and it’s a very large project. So I don’t think that’s out of the ordinary, and I don’t think it’s a large number.
“But those complaints are listened to, and we had already thought through a lot of those, and they’ll be fleshed out in the rest of the project,” he said. “The four or five people that have spoke at each meeting — I don’t believe any of their concerns can’t be solved.”
He said he’s confident the project will come to fruition.
“I think it’s going to be a big win-win, for not only West Mountain but for the Town of Queensbury,” he said. “I think it’ll bring some needed injection of invested capital to the region.”
“We’re trying to build a resort that will bring investment capital here, that will build a lot of jobs for the community and bring a lot of revenue here,” he said.
“We’re trying to bring $190 million in investment to Queensbury, and do it in a really responsible and attractive way, and bring people here from out of the area.”
“We’ve spent a lot of money and time really looking at this from every angle —West Mountain’s angle, the town’s angle, the school system, the people that have continued to put money into West Mountain for the last 12 seasons,” he noted.
He said the status quo is an existential threat for West.
“With the multi-passes now [allowing people to ski many mountains], with the state right up the road [Gore Mountain is operated by the state-owned Olympic Regional Development Authority], it’s impossible to stay in business as a day trip ski area,” he said.
“I knew when I got into this that the only way out of this mousetrap was to make West Mountain and Queensbury a destination resort. And that puts us in a totally different category.
“The struggles that we faced, I think, will go away, and West Mountain’s future will be secure, and it’ll be a really nice thing for the community. It will solve the financial struggles that we have, and we’ll be less beholden on the weather.”
“I want to get it so West Mountain is not living and dying by the weather,” he said. “It’s not just that this is bringing skiers to West Mountain. It’s bringing year-round activity to West Mountain.”
West Mtn.’s season: Gives it 7.5 out of 10
How was the 2024-2025 season season at West Mountain?
“It was solid. I’d say out of 10, I’d give it a seven and a half,” said Spencer Montgomery. “So we’ve had better seasons, and we’ve had worse seasons. The season before this was one of the worst we’ve had in 12 seasons. We just didn’t get temperatures to make snow.”
He said, “There’s a hangover from that. It’s not like you come back the next season and you just bounce back and everything’s hunky dory.
“It’s one step back, two steps forward to get out of the hole.”
“So this year we definitely made back some ground, but we’ve still got to fight.”
“We’ll get through this summer, and then if we have another good year next year, we’ll be back on an even keel.”
Mr. Montgomery said gross sales were up 14.5%, and visitation up 14%.
“I attribute that to the weather. We produced a really amazing product this year. We were able to get our primaries open early, and we had a lot of terrain to offer people.”
Constant cold temperatures helped. “The conditions were the best they’ve ever been. We never got a thaw. I’ve never seen that in 12 years,” said Mr. Montgomery. — Ben Westcott
Copyright © 2025 Lone Oak Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved
