Tree removal begins at Brighton town hall

On July 9, crews cut down two mature locust trees on what will eventually be more parking lot space at the Brighton town hall.

This action, part of a renovation project that has been controversial among some residents, came a week after opponents went to court in a bid to block the project.

The town initiative began two years ago as an asbestos abatement and HVAC project and grew to include geothermal wells, a parking lot overhaul, refurbishment of the outdoor pool and pavilion, and construction of a splash pad and playground.

The project is now in the second of three phases, adding more parking spaces, a raised “speed table” crosswalk, a fence for Brighton Police Department vehicles, and sidewalks at the northern edge. It will require six trees to be cut down, which include the two locust trees. 

So far, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the renovations bear an estimated $13 million price tag. 

A coalition of former volunteer board members, county officials, and other community leaders have been highly critical of the project. Their grievances include environmental concerns, procedural issues, and accusations of skirting regulations.

“It’s not the way to do business in any town, let alone a town that says it’s progressive,” says Serge Tsvasman, one of the group’s key organizers. “You can see the supervisor at Twelve Corners last week at a No Kings rally and here he is doing exactly that. Here you are protesting someone doing something at the Reflecting Pool or destroying the White House to put in a ballroom and it’s happening in our backyard.”

Tsvasman is a former town planning board member who has been joined by others, including Bill Price, George Smith, and John Osowski, several of whom resigned from their positions over this issue.

On June 29, the group launched an Article 78 proceeding, a type of lawsuit that challenges the decision of a local government agency as unlawful, unfair, or unreasonable. While it also sought a temporary stay order for the parking lot renovations, those have been rendered partially moot with the latest removal of trees on the site.

Although the group is frustrated and disappointed at the trees’ removal, they also believe this action could be a boon to their cause.

“Legally, moving forward with this destruction before a judge has even had the opportunity to rule does not weaken us,” reads an update posted to the group’s online petition. “Instead, it strengthens our case and hardens our collective resolve. We are not giving up.”

The petitioner in the lawsuit is Jody McGarry, a resident whose home abuts the Brighton town hall. It specifically targets a May 18 decision by the town board to enter into a $4.48 million contract with Zoladz Construction Co. for its Phase 2 construction. The town of Brighton, the town board, and Supervisor Bill Moehle are named as respondents.

One argument of the Article 78 filing is that the planned construction will directly impact McGarry through “loss of mature vegetative canopy, construction noise, dust and vibration, increased impervious surface and altered drainage, and impacts on the use and enjoyment of Petitioner’s home and the adjoining neighborhood connection.”

Further, since alterations to the plan required additional permits and public-access closures, it argues that any State Environmental Quality Review Act reviews the project received do not apply to the current plan.

The suit also brings up other points often cited by critics of the plan including that tree removal recommendations for Phase 2 by the conservation board were made with incomplete information and that Phase 3 is currently undesigned but dependent on the previous phase.

“All this added parking wasn’t validated by any attempt to determine the requirements for Phase 3,” says Tsvasman. “There was some naivety early on, even before I joined the planning board, where It was assumed that through dialogue or pretense of dialogue there could be a solution or compromise in the town. But attempting (to solve the issue) in good faith failed.”

The suit was submitted by Jesse Capell, a New York City-based lawyer and Brighton High School alum. Tsvasman says that, although many local lawyers said there was a possible case in this matter, they did not want to represent his group due to potential conflict of interests.

A response to the lawsuit by Brighton town attorney John Mancuso came a few days after the filing. It requests that the temporary work stay order be stricken and argues the entire case fails to meet the burden of proof for “irreparable damage” in an Article 78 procedure.

“(McGarry’s) visual screening is entirely unfounded. As reflected on the map below, the work area and grading limits of the Project are well outside the common boundary line between the Town Hall campus and Petitioner’s property,” Mancuso wrote. “No proposed tree clearing or vegetation removal is proposed along Petitioner’s boundary line, whether as part of the Project or otherwise.”

The provided map appears to include an area of the entire renovation project, as it extends outside the previously shared Phase 2 boundary lines. For instance, two trees directly north of the town hall were not slated for removal in the town hall plans, but have been marked in this diagram.

Since the town board issued a “negative declaration” in November 2024, which stated that the development will not have adverse environmental impacts, Mancuso’s response argues that the petition’s delayed complaint is further weakened. 

“(McGarry) waited years while the construction of Phase I of the Project has been ongoing, approximately seven months since the last bond issuance, and over a month since the Town Board awarded the construction contract for Phase II to the lowest responsible bidder, before commencing this proceeding,” it reads. “Petitioner’s delay is inexcusable and shows there is, in fact, no irreparable harm.”

The court updated the petition today. Judge Sam Vallerian has signed a motion for an order to show cause, scheduling an appearance for Oct. 1. The court will review affidavits, exhibits and the proposed order in chambers without the parties present.

The coalition opposed to the town hall project last month launched a GoFundMe campaign with a goal of $8,000 to pay for legal fees in this case. It has raised $2,117 so far and will continue to accept donations. The online petition has received 507 signatures.

 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].