The roots of Brighton’s town hall dispute

In the moments before a special meeting of the Brighton Town Board on Monday, a mother and child brought a homemade sign reading “No! Don’t cut all of the trees down!”

The focus of the sign and meeting was a $4.48 million bid with Zoladz Construction Co. for work primarily related to parking lot improvements as part of the second phase of Brighton Town Hall renovations. 

But the details of the proposed work alone are not responsible for the Phase 2 controversy now roiling the town. Critics also fault the process used to approve the project.

The town hall occupies over 56,000 square feet along busy Elmwood Avenue. The library flanks the town hall to the west, and courts and police department to the east. The area also includes an open green space to the north with foot and bike path access to Sylvan Road.

Brighton Town Supervisor Bill Moehle, the main proponent of the Phase 2 plan, has cited increased parking and handicapped spaces and improved walkability and accessibility as positives of the plan. However, those renovations would take down nine trees around the site.

An amendment proposed by Town Board member Clara Sanguinetti last week would have avoided the tree removal and saved the town money, she says. Deliberations over that amendment stretched the meeting into its fifth hour whereupon the board decided to table the proposal for this week’s meeting.

The plan process has been controversial. Several Planning Board members have resigned, and questions have been raised about procedure, and what plans, if any, have been made for the future. 

In total, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the renovations bear an estimated $13 million price tag. Scant details are currently available for Phase 3, which will include construction or rehabilitation of the town hall outdoor pool, pavilion, playground, and splash pad. Moehle promises that Phase 3 will incorporate a public engagement process and details about cost will be made clear in the coming months.

In response to the sign at Monday’s meeting, Moehle said, “I have good news for you. We’re not going to cut all the trees down.”

By the end of the occasionally tense and laborious four-hour session, that statement was partially true; in a 4-1 vote (with Sanguinetti the lone dissenter), the board approved a plan that keeps three trees as well as promises for some green space to be maintained where others are being removed.

“Parking can always be added later, but we cannot do the opposite,” says Sanguinetti. “We cannot get those trees back when we cut them.”

Problems with the plan

Phase 2 will remove two mature locust trees, both over 20 inches in diameter, in the northwest corner near the former playground site. Not only would they block potential new parking spaces, but the town arborist says the lean of both trees is dangerous, and locust trees are invasive. A small 6-inch diameter weeping cedar set against the front of town hall will also be removed to avoid damage to the building’s foundation.

Three trees included in the paddock behind the Brighton police station will be removed to make way for the installation of a fence. The Brighton Police Department says the measure is necessary as vandalism and car thefts continue to rise. Although the trees are being removed, green space will be maintained in their place.

Three trees in the southeast corner, near Elmwood Ave and Seminole Way, were saved under the amended decision. Moehle says this was possible with a minor change to the plans, and that two planned parking spaces in Phase 2 have been removed.

This compromise seems to have been cold comfort for tree advocates and, more broadly, for critics of the town hall renovations, however. They wanted the board to go further and delay the entire project to allow for community input and to follow proper procedure.

“I wouldn’t call it an olive branch. I would call it a crumb,” says Serge Tsvasman, a former member of the Brighton Planning Board who publicly resigned over this issue. “(The compromise) wasn’t where the meat of the problem was; we got like a crumb of bread.”

Former Planning Board president William Price and member George Smith joined Tsvasman in resigning over this process, each claiming their recommendations and concerns about the project were ignored at different points over the past two years.

While the town legally does not have to follow any of the Planning Board’s recommendations, Price, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue in the Beacon, believes the town administration should be following the same procedures required of businesses.

“This has been going on for more than two years. But then all of a sudden, you see us here in May 2026 and it sounds like a bunch of ranting NIMBYs coming out and saying don’t do anything. But that’s not the case,” says Price, who lives so close to town hall, he considers it his backyard. “We’ve been at this for a long time and this is about far more than nine trees.

“Why do I care about a hundred square feet of asphalt? Why do I care about nine trees? Could I say we can create green space somewhere else to offset it? Could we plant two times as many trees to offset the loss of the environmental benefit of those trees? Yes, we can,” he adds. “But it’s down to the fact that this is the process that the town makes every resident, every business owner, every developer go through. The town is not subjecting themselves to those same standards.”

In addition to the three resignations on the seven-member Planning Board, the town hall renovation project has raised concerns among members of the town’s Conservation Board. President Karen Berger and Smith, who is also a member, have said their approval of tree removal occurred when they were not fully informed.

Over a dozen community members have submitted comments and letters at town board meetings raising concerns with the project, and a petition supporting delaying the project received over 300 signatures, Tsvasman says.

Meanwhile, Monroe County legislators Susan Hughes-Smith and Albert Blankley submitted a letter asking that the project be delayed to allow for more public input. Hughes-Smith appeared in person on Monday to reiterate that request.

“I think there’s really no reason to lose any green space in moving this forward,” said Hughes-Smith. “I believe in us, I believe in Brighton. I believe that we can think about these problems differently, but we have to have courage to pause and say, ‘Let’s get it right the first time and bring everyone along with us.’”

Moehle, who withdrew from the town supervisor Democratic primary in February after failing to secure the party designation, remains committed to this version of the project. He says it needs to be completed on a timeline due to contract obligations, lease agreements for the town hall’s temporary space at Empire State College, and tariff-related uncertainty about material pricing.

“We have the opportunity tonight,” Moehle said at the May 18 meeting. “We have a contract that I believe we’re ready to sign, and we’re ready to make the changes that we need to make to make sure that we have a prompt Phase 3 because we’re not going to be able to do it until we have a contract. We can’t even begin to think about Phase 3 until we know we’re doing Phase 2.

“If we don’t take action tonight, we’re not going to know at the very earliest that we’re going to be doing Phase 3 until sometime in June,” he continued. “And that’s the best-case scenario.”

Growth of the project

The commonly held timeline of events is that Phase 1 of the town renovations grew out of what was originally an asbestos abatement and HVAC project, which began about two years ago.

Geothermal energy wells, which have now been completed, were added to Phase 1 in the process. Then plans for a splash pad were added, and the subsequent pool closure made a controversial splash among residents.

“It started with an HVAC project that led into a total re-gutting and rebuilding of our building that then led to the fact that we know we need to repair that parking lot,” Town Board member Christine Corrado outlined at a May meeting. “Now we’re at the point where we tear up that field to put in the geothermal that we decided we needed for the building. Now we are at a point where we’ve got to repair what we’ve torn up. Now that we’ve gotten to that point, we know that we’re also dealing with the recreation amenities.”

Email communications provided to the Beacon by Price show that, while the Planning Board commended the effort to update the town hall, it also expressed concern about scope creep and lack of engagement in a memo dated July 18, 2024. The board ultimately recommended restarting the design process and expressed interest in having a representative join the steering committee.

The Town Hall Renovation Capital Budget was approved unanimously by the board on Dec. 11, 2024. At least 20 change orders related to asbestos abatement and relocation work in Phase 1 appeared on town board agendas after that point.

“The HVAC system was horribly antiquated. There was no air conditioning in any of the public meeting rooms. People boiled every time there was (a meeting). So, it was absolutely appropriate to renovate the town hall,” Price says. “The decision to use geothermal was a sustainability effort, which was 100% appropriate and 100% in alignment with the town’s vision. But this isn’t the courts or the police or the library. This isn’t the parking lot or the surrounding area.”

The Planning Board specifically sought information about curb-cut modifications, stormwater permits, the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and Phase 3 details.

After waiting for response from the town, the board sent Freedom of Information Law requests to the state Department of Environmental Conservation, Monroe County Department of Transportation, and the town of Brighton in March 2026. The results were mixed.

The DEC FOIL response said it found no relevant files. The county Department of Transportation sent a series of emails from August to October 2025 regarding stormwater plans.  Brighton said it will respond to the FOIL request by June 23. 

“Last night (Moehle) gave more description to the public, frankly, the only description he gave to the public,” Price says, referring to Monday’s meeting. “He never held a public meeting, never held a neighborhood meeting, never held an open house, never did a mailer. Just nothing.”

The town is legally allowed to bypass processes businesses must comply with, such as public informational sessions or tree removal and parking studies.

However, Price believes it is hypocritical of the town to avoid these steps for its own projects. He points to the public presentations made by the state Department of Transportation on its plans for Monroe Avenue as a recent example. The event that the department held was advertised to the public and included multiple experts and DOT employees who took input from residents.

“(Moehle) called out NYS DOT both verbally and in writing at several Town Board meetings that they had to hold public meetings to inform Brighton residents about the Monroe Avenue project,” Price says. “Yes, there’s been discussions (about the town hall project) at the Public Works meetings, but those are at 9 on Tuesday morning once a month. Who in God’s name can make that even if you knew it was on the agenda?”

“There are 37,000 people in the town of Brighton. There is a great group of people assembled here, and I have spoken with all of you,” Corrado said to Phase 2 critics at the May 13 meeting. “But I’ve also spoken with others of the 37,000 people who live in Brighton who are aware of the project and who have talked to us about it.

“I have spoken with our professional colleagues. I have spoken with the professionals that we hired to do the design work and continue to implement and refine and shape and get it as close as possible to what the library needs, what the courts need, what Brighton Police Department needs, and what town hall needs, and what will integrate into the recreation amenities,” she continued. “This gets us as close as we can to good enough for the most people, the most purposes.”

Environmental impact 

In an April board meeting, Moehle gave a proclamation recognizing Arbor Day, and commended the town’s tree policies and Smith for his work on the Conservation Board and with the town’s tree nursery.

“The town of Brighton has the most comprehensive tree law of any community in Monroe County,” said Moehle at the time. “Town trees cannot be cut down without a review process, and that includes the Conservation Board, which serves as our tree council, and in many cases, final approval from the Town Board.

“Future tree removals will be conditioned on a 1.5-to-one tree removal ratio,” he added. “This will help us build our tree canopy and maintain our tree canopy even faster. Now, under our tree law, there are serious penalties for anyone removing a tree illegally in violation of the town law. A town tree, those are trees typically in the rights of way or in our town parks.”

Smith, who accepted the proclamation from Moehle, later in the meeting voiced concerns about the Phase 2 plan from an environmental perspective.

“Conservation Board concerns related to tree removal, increased parking, increased impervious surfaces and runoff, and increased heat island effect have not been addressed,” he said.

Moehle has defended the tree removal decision, citing the Conservation Board’s own report at a January meeting, which called for the removal of all nine trees. The two locust trees in the northwest corner, in particular, were among the most problematic the arborist found.

“They’re the highest rated, and when I say highest rated, that’s not a good thing with trees,” Moehle said at Monday’s meeting. “They were rated a nine (hazard level), which was the highest level (of the nine trees). Removing the unbalanced leads would be close to 30% removal of the tree.”

Berger wrote in a letter submitted at this week’s meeting that the Conservation Board was told those trees would be threatened by the renovations to the site, which caused them to recommend removal.

However, she then says they acted without full information (for example, without knowledge of the Planning Board’s concerns), which could have changed their assessment. She also notes the trees were below the 10-12 hazard level range that the Conservation Board is typically asked to evaluate.

Finally, Berger’s letter also notes that a lack of information could mean any replanted trees’ growing season is cut short, and planting is delayed.

“We have not yet seen plans for Phase 3 to indicate where they would be replaced and with what type and maturity of tree. This will result in a significant time gap between when those trees would be removed and when they would be replaced,” Berger wrote. “Given the relatively small size of most new tree replacements, this will result in a de facto decline in our tree canopy for many years to come.”

Current ratings from environmental nonprofit American Forests’ Tree Equity Score put Brighton at a relatively high 92 (out of 100) composite score, with 25 percent of block groups having a perfect 100.

Still, there is some evidence that the tree canopy is declining in the town. Trees at Work, a data source run by the USDA Forest Service, shows that Brighton lost 11 percent (548 acres) in urban tree canopy coverage from 2015 to 2021. Henrietta, Greece, Gates, and the southwest section of Rochester were the only other towns to lose proportionally more than Brighton.

Increasing access 

Moehle has consistently maintained that the Phase 2 parking project will improve walkability and accessibility.

The approved plan will add over 30 new parking spaces and expand handicapped parking from eight to 20. About seven new crosswalks will be added with a raised “speed table” crosswalk in the northern parking lot connecting it to the court and BPD entrances. A sidewalk will also be added along the northern edge of the area.

“All of those changes will significantly improve the walkability of the site,” Moehle says. “All of those items are connected in a way that, really, none of them exist today.”

In addition, the town supervisor has adamantly stated the additional parking is necessary based on usage at peak hours such as when there are events at the library or pool, when court is in session, or when multiple events are occurring. The added amenities planned for Phase 3 will only further increase traffic at the site, Moehle reasons.

Critics of the plan say this is speculation, however, as the town has not completed a parking survey. Phase 3 plans are undetermined and therefore cannot be accurate to any study either. 

“My question is why don’t we preserve the trees and then carry out a parking study?” says Sanguinetti. “If it’s proven for Phase 3, we need more parking for the amenities, then yes, let’s add more parking. But why make a decision like that you can’t take back?”

Critics of the plan have attempted to conduct their own research. A letter from local civil engineer Greg McMahon submitted by Tsvasman states that the extra parking spaces are not needed. Moehle dismissed this out of hand.

“I don’t want to impugn, but I’m going to have to provide some additional information (on McMahon’s survey),” Moehle said during the meeting. “He described it as a windshield drive-by. Which means he looked out his window. He did it at 10:30 in the morning on a Thursday morning in May. 

“And why is that important,” Moehle continued, “beyond the fact that he just looked out his window? Court is not in session on Thursday morning in May or in any other month. The pool and the splash pad are not open. The library did not have any special programs going on that day. And obviously, the building itself, not only staff, but people who come and go, for example, at tax season, weren’t in the building. You can’t take that kind of a snapshot and conclude that that’s all the parking you need.”

This explanation has not yet satisfied opponents of the town hall renovation in its current form, particularly as it applies to the future Phase 3 plans.

“It’s not even half-baked, it’s a third-baked,” Tsvasman puts it.

While details about the amenities are unclear at this point, Moehle notes that state Sen. Jeremy Cooney and Assemblymember Sarah Clark have secured grants of $700,000 and $500,000 for the construction of a splash pad and the rehabilitation of the outdoor pool, respectively.

Price says both projects will require more money to complete, and that funding for a new pavilion and playground has yet to be determined. He believes there were legal violations in the process and has submitted a formal request for the DEC to interpret the documents. However, the 26-year veteran of the Planning Board says he’s disappointed and worn out from the fight.

“The only thing that gives me hope is the possibility of change,” he says, adding that he plans to take a mental break from the matter for now. “Nate (Salzman) is beyond a breath of fresh air. Clara (Sanguinetti) is remarkable beyond description. It’s my generation of people who are failing us here. (Town board member Chris Werner), Bill, Christine, the Boomers are failing our community. It is just so embarrassing.”

Salzman, the presumptive next Brighton town supervisor, backed Sanguinetti’s original amendment, which failed in a 3-2 vote. He then voted in favor of the plan that saved three trees and maintained green space around the police parking area.

In an interview before Monday’s vote, Salzman said town staff warned that failure to approve the bid would push off construction for a full year. 

“My concern is then, if (what) town staff says (is) true, I don’t want to delay a move back into the building or the construction of the pool, the playground, and the splash pad,” he said. “Now I think it’s worth noting that the experts on the Planning Board who resigned would strongly disagree and say that you could do Phase 2 and 3 at the same time and keep on schedule.”

Salzman added that he has been frustrated with the conflicting information from the town administration and Planning Board members.

“This doesn’t seem like effective governance or effective procedure for a project like this,” he said.

“I think he should have voted no,” says Tsvasman, who also wanted Salzman to be more vocal in his support for Sanguinetti’s amendment. 

For his part, Moehle believes the project will make lasting improvements for the town.

“We will have a fantastic town hall at the end of this,” he said. “An environmentally conscious town hall and an accessible town hall.”

 Jacob Schermerhorn is a Rochester Beacon contributing writer and data journalist.

The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].