[MindBender26]

The tree was not "pruned." It was killed.

Under the law, the State often has control of land within a certain distance from a public thoroughfare. For example, for safety reasons, no one wants a large tree planted or a brick wall built within six inches of the curb of 55 mph road.

[BenLurkin]

If the tree branches blocked a stop sign or its roots were pulling up a sidewalk then it was an encroachment onto public property.

The city certainly could request he do something about that.

BUT if his remedy is to remove his tree then that should be his right to take the tree out altogether. If the city wants shade then it need to plant its own tree.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

My last house had an (unexercised) easement twenty feet from the property line in a area that required forty+plus foot setbacks for new development. The town could have widened the street by forty feet by exercising the easement on both sides of the street. Some of the main routes in that town were two lane roads, with older houses only a few from the road. It would be impossible to widen the road without knocking down some older houses.

They actually burned down an eighteenth century house as practice for the fire department when they couldn't get anyone to move it. They needed to replace a bridge over a railroad line. The old bridge had been condemned and the railroad (Boston & Maine), which owned and maintained it, wanted to build a taller bridge which would accomodate freight trains, the town didn't want freight trains coming through town. While they wrangled a major N/S commuter thoroughfare (Route 27) was detoured through side streets acrossing a grade crossing.

[rock58seg]

The tree was not "pruned." It was killed.

No it wasn't. I trimmed a lot of maples when I lived up north. That tree will sprout out very bushy in the springtime. Remember he had professionals do it and it looks as if they did it correctly.