My neighbor diod this to his trees. The funny thing is that they speouted and grew back with a vengence. LOL!
Posted on 02/04/2007 6:54:18 AM PST by AmericanMade1776
A Worcester property owner is facing a stiff fine after confusion over a city order to clean up a vacant lot brought about the sad end of a 200-year-old silver maple tree.
NewsCenter 5's Jim Boyd reported that an elegant shade tree once stood at the corner of Carver and Belmont streets in Worcester, at the edge of a vacant lot belonging to businessman Anthony Mallozzi.
In September 2005, Worcester officials denied Mallozzi's request to remove tree, insisting city workers would instead prune it. The city did no work on the tree. Last month, Mallozzi paid to have the tree pruned.
That tree was healthy, vigorous and did not need the level of pruning that Mr. Mallozzi undertook," Worcester City Manager Michael O'Brien said.
Mallozzi argued the tree was dying from termite infestation. He took pictures of rotted limbs, and he said the city's Department of Health and Human Services sent him a letter, which he interpreted to mean that he should trim the tree.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
It's not just Massachusetts, sad to say. The city of Greensboro, NC has an "arborist" on staff. They'll fine you if you trim your crepe myrtles the "wrong" way in an historic district, in your own yard.
Speaking of which, are the elections up there fixed? If not, WHY do people continue to vote for Teddy Kennedy?
You folks need to read the article.
Unless I am misreading it (and I live in Massachusetts, so I have heard a little more about it) the tree was NOT on the person's property, it was at the EDGE of his propery but not on it. It was on CITY land.
What he did was wrong. He deserved to be fined. If it was on his property, fine. He can do what he wishes. But is was not, and that changes everything. It is being portrayed as the government telling the guy what he can do with property he owns, and it is nothing like that.
The letter definetly says bushes or TREES.
Sure.
It's his tree.
If he wants to cut it down that's his business.
I can understand in a historic district, where you are trying to maintain a certain era look.
But,
Here is a Businessman trying to make it better, yet layers of ambiguous over regulation (snob zoning & Mass. Socialism) at the city level has this man in a state of flux. It wouldn't surprise me if some business friendly state makes an overture to this entrepreneur to "Come on Down!"
This is not the 1st I heard of this. In another MA. town I heard of a young lad that rather than getting an approval from some Eco-Board said screw you, its on my property and cut a tree down. He got called in and fined. They don't know, that they don't know they are loosing their freedom.
My neighbor diod this to his trees. The funny thing is that they speouted and grew back with a vengence. LOL!
did, sprouted. LOL!
spell check challenged.
As the denizens of communist states have learned at the price of much pain since the days of Lenin, commissars are NOT there to help you; commissars are there to enjoy ego trips, push their weight around, and exult in making life difficult. This is what happens when the constitution is shredded, state socialism is established, and the concept of property rights becomes meaningless. Soon coming to your town.
It was not his tree. The right of way of roads in most cities includes the pavement, the land between the road and the sidewalk (called the tree lawn in some places), the sidewalk, and a few inches beyond the sidewalk belong to the city. If you look up in city records, they will tell you the width of the street is much bigger than the pavement. Your property begins at the surveyor's stakes (if any), which is where the right of way ends.
It is not your tree. The sidewalk isn't yours, either, but cities will still make you maintain it for them, but they don't wan't you messing with their trees. But you do have to cut their grass. Odd set of rules that make you responsible for everything but the tree. And that is the thing that can rot out and kill you.
This guy's maple was on the way out if his photos are correct. Most of the large limbs appeared to be hollow. He should have kept bugging the city to remove the tree before it killed someone. Ask for something in writing from the city that says the property owner is not responsible if the dangerous tree falls on someone. That usually gets them moving. The guy probably has an attorney. He should have let him bug the city.
Pruning yields a $6,800 fine
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Work done without city OK
By Shaun Sutner TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
Paul Dalton Huyser of North Grafton gets into his car at Belmont and Carver streets in Worcester Friday near a 200-year-old tree that was severely cut in a pruning job that drew a large fine by the City of Worcester. (T&G Staff/TOM RETTIG) WORCESTER— The city has taken a whack at a property owner who had a landmark tree’s limbs chopped off without proper approval.
But Anthony J. Mallozzi III, the city businessman who hired a friend for what he thought was some much-needed pruning of the 200-year-old silver maple, says he’s been caught up in a costly bureaucratic snafu when he was only trying to do the right thing.
The tree occupies a thin sliver of city property on a sidewalk median just off Route 9, across from UMass Memorial Medical Center — University Campus.
Almost three weeks ago, Mr. Mallozzi, who owns a vacant lot that abuts what’s left of the tree, had the subcontractor lop off three main limbs, leaving an odd-looking, approximately 40-foot trunk at the well-traveled intersection of Carver Street and Route 9 (Belmont Street). The tree is between the Hess and Shell gas stations.
After learning of what they said was unauthorized tree work, employees of the municipal forestry department posted signs on the tree saying the act was under investigation. They soon found out who commissioned it, although officials were still trying to locate the actual company that did the deed.
“He had the company pretty much destroy the tree,” said Robert C. Antonelli Jr., assistant commissioner of the city’s parks, recreation and cemetery division. “He didn’t have approval to touch a city tree.”
Using a formula derived from the tree’s diameter and how much it costs to replace it, the city has leveled a $6,800 restitution fee against Mr. Mallozzi.
Mr. Mallozzi says he has agreed to pay, but only after Mr. Antonelli “twisted his arm.” Compounding his financial distress is the fact that he had paid $1,500 for the tree work, he said.
Besides, while Mr. Antonelli maintains the tree was in “fair” health and only needed pruning, Mr. Mallozzi has photos to show what he says is a massive termite infestation that had hollowed out the limbs and most of the 68-inch-diameter trunk.
“I did not cut the tree. I trimmed the tree. I de-limbed the tree,” Mr. Mallozzi said. “The tree stands today.”
Mr. Mallozzi noted that he originally went through the proper channels. At a September 2005 tree hearing at which he asked to be allowed to remove the tree, he said Mr. Antonelli promised that the city would trim it for him. The city never did the work, he says.
However, Mr. Antonelli, in a Jan. 16, 2007, letter to Mr. Mallozzi, reminded him that his request had been denied at the 2005 hearing, and that Mr. Mallozzi was informed that if the tree was removed, the property owner would bear the cost to replace it.
“This tree indeed was severely damaged and the crown removed without permission,” the assistant commissioner wrote.
Mr. Mallozzi also owns a building and another empty lot on Carver Street, and he runs an insurance company. He is known, among other building projects, for his renovation of the old fire station on Shrewsbury Street — which he still owns — that houses Junior’s restaurant.
He said he intended to clean up the Carver Street property and was acting in good faith after being ordered last month by the city Health and Human Services Department to tidy up. The Jan. 3 notice he received said the property was in violation of city ordinances because the growth of shrubs, bushes or trees encroached on a public way, and high weeds and shrubs were invading the sidewalk.
“I thought I had then been anointed as the protector of the public way,” Mr. Mallozzi said.
Mr. Antonelli, though, is not pleased.
“Now the tree is no good to us,” he said. “It needed a minor trim, but not the trim it received. That was a beautiful tree.”
The city plans to cut down the rest of the once-towering tree, grind the stump and plant a new one in its place. The rest of the money will go for a couple of dozen new trees, at about $300 each, which will be planted around the neighborhood in cooperation with residents, Mr. Antonelli said.
“The neighbors have been really upset by this,” he said.
In order to legally remove a tree that is on public land, the city requires a full public hearing.
The city itself often removes trees that are diseased, but no hearing is necessary.
Contact Shaun Sutner by e-mail at ssutner@telegram.com.
What kind of idiot would plant trees that close together? In 30 years, their trunks would grow into a solid wall of wood! Two of them are just about touching the curb. He should have taken out all but one of them. Even so, that would still be a bit close to the driveway. Is this guy just plain stupid or perverted?
I am not afraid of Pruning, if it wasn't for pruning, we would all be living in a jungle. In Massachusetts, it is not safe to drive with trees planted close to the road ways.
Looks like the Italian way
of prune a tree they don't
really want on their property.
_______________________
I can't stop laughing at their
pruning job. I didn't expect
a single leave or branch anywhere.
ha...
One thing for sure, That tree has been eliminated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.