[Lydo]

Dear Tinian:
The municipality can only impose restrictions on the right of way that have to do with the safety of the road. The municipality has no right to remove any vegetation without the permission of the abutting property owner unless it is a potential safety problem related to the use of the road. The abutting property owns the roadbed as a presumption in the law and therefore, owns the vegetation. If you believe otherwise, you're wrong on the law but you'd fit right in at Scarsdale Village Hall.

[Tinian]

The municipality can only impose restrictions on the right of way that have to do with the safety of the road. The municipality has no right to remove any vegetation without the permission of the abutting property owner unless it is a potential safety problem related to the use of the road. The abutting property owns the roadbed as a presumption in the law and therefore, owns the vegetation. If you believe otherwise, you're wrong on the law but you'd fit right in at Scarsdale Village Hall.

You are correct in stating that a property owner is presumed to own to the center line of Right-of-way. If a Right-of-way is vacated the abutting property owner will gain title to the center of the Right-of-way.

Unless the Right-of-way is vacated, however, the municipality owns it and may remove vegetation from it for a myriad of reasons, e.g.--sightline problems, the installation and maintenance of utilities, the installation and maintenance of signage, the installation and maintenance of drainage works, the installation and maintenance of bus stops, etc.--just to name a few.

You can go wacky libertarian all you want on the issue but the bottom line is if you plant something on public property you can't claim ownership of it.

Can I plant a tree on YOUR property and prevent you from cutting it down by claiming I planted it?