RAY BROOK — The Adirondack Park Agency board voted 9-0 at its Thursday meeting to uphold the administrative law judge’s decision allowing Adirondack Wild to fully participate in the agency’s adjudicatory hearing for a proposed howitzer testing range in the town of Lewis.

The matter was before the board as an appeal by attorney Matthew Norfolk, who represents the artillery testing range permit applicant, Michael Hopmeier, through his company, Unconventional Concepts, Inc. Norfolk was seeking to have the green group removed for what he said was a materially deficient application.

Adirondack Wild is an environmental conservation advocacy group that is opposed to the proposed range. It was one of four green groups that applied for party status. All four groups were granted that in full by Administrative Law Judge David Greenwood, who is serving as the hearing officer. While the adjudicatory hearing, like a conventional trial, is open to the public to witness, it is only the parties that can actively participate in it.

This includes establishing the slate of issues to be addressed, presenting evidence and testimony from experts, as well as cross-examining those of other parties. The scope of participation by any one party may, however, be limited to certain issues within the hearing by the administrative law judge.

Of the four green groups, Adirondack Wild was the only one that Norfolk challenged, stating that its petition for party status was “materially defective.” He provided five arguments for Greenwood to consider. The administrative law judge was not persuaded and ruled that Adirondack Wild had satisfied the requirements for admission. To read more about that challenge and ruling, visit tinyurl.com/36k7h9fb.

Adirondack Wild Executive Director David Gibson lauded the APA’s vote.

“I subsequently, before the deadline, submitted our papers to the judge,” he said. “It was a pretty easy vote for them because the judge really went through all of the details in his ruling. All of the parties submitted similar papers, similar reasons for being of party status, so it’s still a puzzle why we were picked out.”

Gibson said he was looking forward to the adjudicatory hearing getting underway.

“I feel privileged to be part of this hearing, which is such a rare event, and look forward to the hearing getting started,” he said.

Norfolk did not respond to the Enterprise’s comment request by press time Thursday.

The appeal was first discussed by the APA board’s regulatory programs committee, which consists of board members: committee chair Daniel Wilt, Jose Almazar, Arthur Lussi and Kenneth Lynch. Wilt read the board’s three options: to reverse Greenwood’s ruling and remove Adirondack Wild as a hearing party, to reverse Greenwood’s ruling in part and limit Adirondack Wild’s participation from its current full-party status, or to uphold Greenwood’s ruling.

Wilt told the board that in so doing, they were not to substitute their judgment for Greenwood’s. Rather, their standard was to determine if his ruling was “supported by substantial evidence.”

“I’m just here as one of the board members saying that I would affirm the law judge’s ruling because I think that it was reasonable and substantial in his discretion,” Lussi said in the committee’s discussion.

The deliberation was otherwise largely procedural, with members asking APA Associate Counsel Matthew Robinson-Loeffler about the legal standard and if the committee’s recommendation draft could be finalized and brought before the full board during the same meeting, which Robinson-Loeffler said could be done.

None of the board members voiced concern or reservations over Greenwood’s decision to grant Adirondack Wild full party status. The regulatory committee voted 3-0 — Almazar was absent from the meeting — to affirm Greenwood’s ruling in full. Later, there was minimal discussion when the committee’s finalized draft was presented to the full board, which took a roll call vote to accept.

Throughout the adjudicatory hearing, parties have the opportunity to appeal Greenwood’s rulings to the APA board, which it will typically consider at the closest upcoming meeting. This intra-hearing challenge process is separate from the Article 78 proceeding currently playing out in state Supreme Court — in which Norfolk is seeking to nullify the adjudicatory hearing in its entirety.

That is still in its prehearing phase, with the first court date having been rescheduled from today until April 20. To read about the Article 78 proceeding, visit tinyurl.com/3f3ea7nm and tinyurl.com/v4nwhmyz.

Much of that is centered upon APA Board Member Rush Holt’s status as an Adirondack Council board member from 2022 to 2025. The Adirondack Council is one of the four environmental conservation advocacy groups that are opposed to the proposed howitzer test range that were granted party status. Holt had voted, along with the other 10 APA board members, to initiate the adjudicatory hearing.

Norfolk’s Article 78 challenge contends that Holt’s participation was a conflict of interest, and he had a duty to recuse himself from any APA discussions and votes on the project once he joined the APA board in 2025.

At Thursday’s APA meeting, Holt abstained from the Adirondack Wild discussion and vote, leaving the room when those took place. That combined with Almanzar’s absence, resulted in the 9-0 full board vote.

The Article 78 proceeding seeks to axe the adjudicatory hearing, and Greenwood has delayed the start of the latter until April 22, in part to give room for the former to play out. This delay was before the Article 78 proceeding was itself essentially delayed two more months, and is unclear if this will pose additional schedule delays for the adjudicatory hearing start.

In addition to the four green groups, Hopmeier, through his counsel, APA staff and Greenwood are the other hearing parties. The burden of proof rests with the project sponsor. Greenwood, as the hearing officer, oversees the process and its adherence to the rules that govern APA adjudicatory hearings.

At the hearing’s conclusion, the APA board will vote on whether or not to approve or deny the project, or approve it with substantial modifications. Adjudicatory hearings are the only procedural avenue through which the APA can deny or substantially modify a permit that is deemed complete, which Hopmeier’s was on Sept. 26, 2025, following several years of addressing various notices of incompletion APA staff had issued.

For more information from the APA on the howitzer proposal and the various exchanges between the parties that comprise the hearing record so far, visit tinyurl.com/mpdramry. For case filings on the Article 78 proceeding from the state’s court system, visit tinyurl.com/mr49p3aa.