Court denies appeal in Watershed Center suit

 NORTH EAST — A decision was handed down by the appellate court, in an Article 78 lawsuit appeal filed by resident Brian Richard Watkins against The Watershed Center and the North East Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), on Wednesday, Feb. 10. 

It was a long time coming. After more than two years of litigating, the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department.

“We are, of course, incredibly grateful and extremely happy to have this aspect of our formation, and branding process, behind us,” said Watershed Center Co-Founder Gregg Osofsky on Thursday, Feb. 25. “While we’ve felt for a long while that this would be the outcome, it is, of course, good to finally have it official.”

“It’s a relief,” said ZBA Co-Chair Julie Schroeder. “It’s been a long process.”

The Watershed Center, according to its website, www.thewatershedcenter.org, “is a retreat and resource center for changemakers.”

 It offers “seminars, workshops, consulting and organizational retreats designed to help people align their lives with their own deepest sense of purpose, to strengthen the creative capacity of organizations and to facilitate strategic conversations in service of democracy, ecology and liberation.”

 It is located at 44 Kaye Road. During its application process, Watkins, a neighbor of the property, filed an Article 78 lawsuit challenging the ZBA’s approval of the project. 

 An Article 78 is “a special proceeding, which seeks to challenge actions of administrative agencies and other government bodies,” according to www.nycourts.gov.

 Watkin’s lawsuit challenged the description of the project as an educational center rather than an educational institution. Centers typically don’t house overnight guests; institutions require 100 acres of land or more. In the end, the ZBA ruled The Watershed Center qualified as an educational center.

 Watkin’s original notice of petition, filed on or about Jan. 29, 2014, argued that he would “suffer adverse impacts including but not limited to visual impacts, community character impacts, noise impacts, drainage impacts, traffic impacts, compliance with town land-use rules, regulations on procedures, water supply impacts and wastewater disposal impacts.”

 That notice of petition was filed after Watkin’s original lawsuit objecting to the ZBA ruling was thrown out of court on or about Jan. 3, 2014, by New York State Supreme Court Judge Christine A. Sproat. The notice of petition requested the court’s Appellate Division “reverse the determination by J.S.C. Sproat.”

 The Appellate Division’s Feb. 10 decision instead “ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.”

 That last part allows for the reimbursement of roughly $250 worth of court costs, said Osofsky — barely a drop in the bucket considering what’s been spent during the past few years.

 “It’s nominal,” he said. “I  don’t even know why they have that.”

 Osofsky continued that it was quite an ordeal that he and his partner, Brooke Lehman, went through waiting for a final court ruling.

 “The cost in time and in money and in energy was significant,” he said. “But I do want to add that ultimately, the process also bolstered our commitment, and that once we were finally up and running it felt like everything else was easy and exciting in comparison. So, it’s been a really tremendous shift and this has really been behind us for some time now.”

 Schroeder, for her part, said she’s sometimes troubled by the process — though she respects its necessity.

 “It kind of bothers me that to get a permit, which you’re entitled to, or if it’s a permitted use, it costs so much money and takes so long,” she said. “It’s kind of discouraging.”

 The Watershed Center has been open since June 2014. Schroeder said its existence, and the court’s ruling, validate the ZBA decision.

 “Oh yes,” she said. “Our attorney said there was no possibility that we would come out on the losing end, but there’s always that chance. I was overjoyed [with the verdict].”

 Watkins did not respond to calls from this paper requesting comment.

 Osofsky, meanwhile, said that there have been no complaints since the center opened speaks volumes to the organization’s commitment to the local community.

 “I hope that our way of running the center is demonstrative of the fact that we’re good neighbors,” he said, “and that the work we’re doing here and in the community is something to be supported and welcomed.”

 In addition to hosting retreats, The Watershed Center is engaged with local community groups — with a focus on social justice.

 Originally, the center partnered with the organic farm, Sol Flower Farm, which leased property on its land. Now, it’s working with a new farm, Rock Steady Farm and Flowers, which took over from Sol Flower Farm in the last year or so.

 “They’re a fascinating crew of people,” said Osofsky. “What  they represent is actually, though [Sol Flower] had alignment and affinity for our work, what this farm represents in addition to that is that they’re food justice organizers and educators, so the farm is much more aligned with us and it will be exciting for ongoing collaboration.”

 During the past 18 months, The Watershed Center has held more than 60 retreats and had more than 1,200 people walk through its doors — from all around the globe.

 “It’s been a real affirmation of our vision, as far as there being a need for groups committed to social justice and having an institution devoted to providing retreats and programming for their development,” said Osofsky. “We’re super-thrilled that we are working exclusively with social justice groups, and that we have not had to just rent out the place, so to speak. We feel incredibly on-mission, and that’s really exciting to have so quickly affirmed both our organizing model and also our business model.”