Tulare County planners and commissioners continued a contentious, multi‑point discussion of Special Use Permit PSP25‑030 to a date certain — Dec. 10 — after neighbors and the applicant reached partial agreement on buffers but not on the form of screening.

Planning Director Aaron Bach told the commission staff had circulated a memo and recommended a 20‑foot buffer along the north side of the property where equipment may not be placed. The remaining dispute was whether that buffer should be screened by plantings or a cinder‑block wall. Bach said vines on a fence or larger shrubs could achieve the green screening the neighbor sought without the expense or visual impact of a full wall, and that staff also recommends a code‑violation agreement to allow monthly inspections until all conditions are met.

Neighbor Tara Domingos said she appreciated the buffer but asked for clearer, "black and white" commitments on what would be planted and where, noting repeated truck backing‑up beeps and concerns about property value. "The beeping all day is disturbing," she said, and asked that plantings be included on the east side near her driveway as well.

Applicant representative Kevin Bacher told the commission that he had already purchased mesh, installed drip irrigation and dug planting holes, and disputed that beeping was a constant all‑day occurrence. "The beeping all day is an incorrect statement," Bacher said. He said he would replace plants as needed and was willing to double up mesh or add vines to meet neighbors’ concerns while avoiding immediate installation of large, expensive trees.

Staff discussed noise readings taken by consultant Russell that showed episodic levels between about 66 and 74 decibels during site visits and explained that the county’s general‑plan guidance treats 75 dB as a 24‑hour average expectation for agricultural land; because the site’s noise is episodic, staff said it likely falls below thresholds that would trigger CEQA mitigation measures. Bach also noted that Caltrans encroachment permits can take about a year, and recommended allowing time to secure any necessary encroachment approvals while using a code‑violation agreement and inspections to ensure compliance in the interim.

After discussion, the commission voted unanimously to continue PSP25‑030 to Dec. 10 and directed staff to return with more concrete conditions on fencing, plantings and a draft code‑violation agreement that could include a timeline and enforcement provisions.