The Bexley Tree Commission on a show-of-hands vote on Tuesday tabled an application for a front-yard landscape and memorial sculpture at 124 Stansbury Avenue until its January meeting and asked staff to obtain a written opinion from the city attorney on whether the city’s current ordinances permit shrubs in the public right-of-way.

The application, filed as PGC 25-5, was presented by landscape architect Mark Schaeffer, who described a private courtyard-style front yard and a sculpture intended to memorialize the applicant’s daughter. Schaeffer said technical concerns raised at an earlier review — including a visibility triangle and structural details for the sculpture — had been addressed.

"This front yard has really been designed as a courtyard, a private courtyard," Schaeffer said during his presentation. Staff member Walter said supplemental documentation for tree protection and the visibility triangle had been provided and recommended approval "as presented," subject to the remaining technical checks.

Several commissioners questioned the proposal’s placement of plantings inside the public right-of-way and noted the absence of a consistent city standard. The chair told the commission it had previously asked the city attorney for guidance on whether shrubs are allowed in the right-of-way and said a written opinion was necessary before the body could responsibly grant an exception.

"I would suggest that we table it until January, with[out] requiring the applicant to come back unless they want to," the chair said, adding that any later approval should be contingent on receiving the city attorney’s opinion.

Susan moved to table the application to January with that contingency; the motion was seconded and passed on a show-of-hands. For the record, the chair announced Celeste, Mary, Linda, the chair, and Susan voted in favor; Sheila and Adra voted against the motion.

The commission recorded that the decision will be revisited in January, at which point commissioners said they will consider the attorney’s written opinion and then decide whether to approve the application or require the applicant to return after any ordinance changes.

Next steps: staff was directed to remind the city attorney about the pending opinion and to place the application back on the January agenda for action once that opinion is available.