Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor accuses cell‑tower contractor of damaging driveway and failing to remediate; contractor says it will fix the damages
Summary
An adjacent property owner told the court that construction of a nearby cell tower caused culvert and drainage damage to her equestrian farm and alleged the county failed to require needed drainage plans. Contractor and county staff described pre‑suit communications and voluntary remediation estimates; county staff said enforcement options are limited and the matter may be civil litigation.
The court heard a public complaint from a property owner who said construction of a telecommunications tower at 8706 County Road 133 damaged her driveway, culvert and created adverse drainage impacts on her equestrian farm at 8696 County Road 133.
"The county absolutely failed on their permitting process," the resident said, arguing staff did not require a drainage plan for the tower and that promised remediation from the tower contractor never arrived after a productive April meeting. She said a pre‑suit demand letter was later sent and reported her tax assessor indicated a decline in value tied to the construction.
Annette Harbaugh, who identified herself as sole owner of CA Bass (the contractor that performed site work), disputed claims that her company was fired by Vertical Bridge and said her team had engaged with the property owner’s attorney after receiving a pre‑suit letter on May 22. Harbaugh said CA Bass obtained estimates and corrected portions of the culvert and had provided follow‑up estimates (she cited $11,000 and later a $17,000 estimate for further repairs) and that legal and insurance processes were engaged before any work could proceed.
Engineering clarified the county issued a development permit in July 2025 and later inspected the site; staff said the project is outside a regulatory floodplain and that the county’s enforcement authority is limited to floodplain, OSSF and subdivision regulations. County staff advised the court they have pursued voluntary compliance and attempted to bring parties together, but that in many cases the remedy for diverted drainage is a civil suit between property owners.
What’s next: the court indicated it will not intervene in private civil litigation but asked staff to confirm what the county did and did not require in the permit process and to continue monitoring remediation.
