Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Compliance Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing continued after Renfros and county reach interim code-compliance plan
Summary
Tulare County hearing officer continued an administrative appeal for one month after parties agreed to meet and seek a code-compliance agreement; if executed, the hearing will be continued three months and may be dismissed on full compliance.
Tulare County hearing officer Thomas Dame continued an administrative appeal for 30 days on May 7, 2025, after the parties in the appeal by Christopher and Margie Renfro agreed to meet and seek a code-compliance agreement for a property identified in the hearing record as APN 290 Five-one-Hundred And Eighty-five.
The agreement came after an informal conference of about 40 minutes. Dame said the parties would return in roughly 30 days to report progress; if they sign a code-compliance agreement before that date, the hearing will be continued for three months to allow performance of the agreement, and the appeal will be dismissed if the agreed terms are fully complied with.
The move pauses formal adjudication while county staff and the Renfros attempt a negotiated resolution. Thomas Dame, the hearing officer, told participants that all parties would “reserve all their rights” to challenge evidentiary sufficiency or procedural notices should the matter return to a hearing.
Aaron Bach, identified in the record as Planning Director for the county Resource Management Agency (RMA), appeared for the agency. Christopher Renfro and Margie Renfro appeared in person for the appellants. A county clerk (identified in the record as Adam) assisted scheduling.
Dame offered two tentative dates in June; parties initially discussed June 5 and the week of June 16, but scheduling conflicts led them to set the next hearing for Monday, June 23, 2025, at 2 p.m., subject to the clerk’s calendaring. Dame said that if he receives a signed compliance agreement and no objection, he will coordinate with the clerk to set a subsequent three-month continuance; if the county receives correspondence showing disagreement or lack of progress, the hearing will proceed on June 23.
The hearing record states the underlying case number is SWP 2,300,044 and the appeal number is 2025-01. Dame closed the brief session after confirming appearances and scheduling, and ended with the remark, “think positive thoughts.”
No formal vote was taken during the May 7 proceeding; the continuance and the described scheduling steps were recorded as the parties’ agreed process for pursuing compliance and avoiding a return to contested hearing if the agreement is completed and complied with.
