RAY BROOK — The Adirondack Park Agency’s adjudicatory hearing for a proposed howitzer artillery cannon testing range in the town of Lewis has been delayed until Oct. 28, 2026.
It’s the hearing’s fifth postponement and was granted on Thursday by Administrative Law Judge David Greenwood, who serves as the hearing officer. It was requested Wednesday by APA attorney Grace Sullivan, who reasoned that more time is needed for all parties to work through the voluminous pre-hearing phase, which is active and ongoing.
“This adjournment is necessary to provide APA hearing staff, the Applicant, and the intervening parties with ample opportunity to provide complete responses to discovery requests, develop expert reports, and prepare for the evidentiary portion of the hearing,” she wrote.
“We will continue building a strong case against this proposed project so that the Agency Board members have a solid record to deny it after the hearing, whenever the hearing takes place,” Claudia Braymer, executive director of Protect the Adirondacks! wrote in a text message.
Protect! is one of the four intervenor parties — along with Adirondack Council, Adirondack Wild: Friends of Forest Preserve and the Sierra Club’s Atlantic Chapter — all of which are environmental conservation advocacy groups that oppose the howitzer.
Braymer added that she was unaware of any parties objecting to this latest delay. It comes on the heels of lengthy pre-hearing submitted witness lists and evidence demands from the other sides. Those can be found at tinyurl.com/mpdramry, though are subject to expansion or change as the pre-hearing phase continues.
STATE COURT PROCEEDING
Notably, this delay is unrelated to an Article 78 lawsuit from the project applicant — Michael Hopmeier through his company, Unconventional Concepts, Inc. — in which he is seeking to have the APA board’s decision to even hold the adjudicatory hearing nullified.
Those arguments were held before state Supreme Court Justice Allison McGahay in Elizabethtown on April 20. An earlier article on that is available at tinyurl.com/yrw627pd.
Hopmeier’s attorney, Matthew Norfolk, alleged that APA Board Member Rush Holt’s participation in the vote and the discussion leading up to it was a conflict of interest and sullied the decision. He further alleged that APA Executive Director Barbara Rice’s decision to appoint Greenwood as the hearing officer, as well as his continued participation and refusal to accede to Norfolk’s recusal request, are conflicts of interest.
Norfolk’s allegations against Holt are premised on his prior role as an Adirondack Council board member and, as of February, reported status as a general, dues-paying member. Holt’s tenure as an Adirondack Council board member overlapped with its formal howitzer opposition. Norfolk’s allegations against Greenwood are based on his former staff role as a policy analyst for Adirondack Council, a position he held from 1993 to 2000, before he attended law school.
Lawyers with the state Attorney General’s office defended the APA, Holt, Rice and Greenwood — all in their professional capacities — against Norfolk’s Article 78 lawsuit. They contended that it was mere speculation and failed to show an actual conflict of interest for any of those officials. The state attorneys further argued that even if there had been conflicts — which they adamantly denied exist — Norfolk failed to prove that those have influenced or otherwise corrupted both the APA’s decision to hold an adjudicatory hearing and anything about the hearing so far.
The APA’s 11-member board voted unanimously in favor of the adjudicatory hearing. No other board member cited Holt’s comments, presence or any sort of influence on his part as a reason for their decision. Holt also did not cite the Adirondack Council’s advocacy as a reason for his individual decision.
The state attorneys argued that there were, indeed, ample and sound reasons for agency board members to vote in favor of holding an adjudicatory hearing here — including potential adverse environmental and human impacts that could come with a howitzer testing range at its proposed location, as well as the novelty of such a project review for the APA.
Though it hasn’t held one since 2011, the agency only requires a simple majority board vote to do so. Adjudicatory hearings are the only procedural avenue the APA has to deny or substantially modify a project that’s deemed complete, which Hopmeier’s was in September 2025 — nearly four years after the agency received his first application in November 2021.
The APA board can also vote to approve a project after an adjudicatory hearing, which is meant to gather the facts the APA board needs to make a project application decision, and defend it in any subsequent court actions. A hearing officer doesn’t make the decision. Rather, their job is to ensure that the process adheres to its rules, is orderly and, to the extent possible, efficient.
McGahay has not issued a ruling as of press time Thursday evening. It’s unclear when that’s expected. If she were to rule in Hopmeier’s favor, it’s also unclear how that would impact the APA’s project review process. Asked directly by McGahay in court, Norfolk indicated that he would be OK with the APA staff re-presenting Hopmeier’s application to its board for a re-vote, this time in Holt’s absence — rather than McGahay entirely superseding the APA’s decision-making powers for Hopmeier’s application, at least at this juncture.
Even if it survives its current court challenge, the Oct. 28 hearing start date is far from certain. McGahay’s ruling could be appealed — whether it fully grants, partially grants or denies the Article 78 challenge — potentially posing additional delays. There could also be intra-adjudicatory hearing developments that push its start date further.