Public Meetings - Greenburgh, New York

The Town of Greenburgh Antenna Review Board met on February 5, 2026, at 7:00 PM to review two applications for wireless facility modifications. Board members present: Chair Catherine Letter, Diane Torstraf, and Town Liaison Francis Sheehan. David Kenny (Snyder & Snyder) represented both applicants. Both applications were found incomplete during the completeness review process. Discussion Items 300 West Hartsdale Avenue – T-Mobile (New Submission, January 28, 2026) - The board reviewed a new application for T-Mobile, submitted on January 28, 2026, and reviewed eight days later on February 5, 2026. - Detailed deficiencies were identified, including: - Lack of credentials and signatures for Thomas Moore and Bethany Wu (no qualifications or attestations). - Address errors throughout submissions (using "Greenburgh" instead of "Hartsdale"). - Affidavit issues: Raymond Masita signed as individual owner rather than on behalf of the Hartsdale Fire District, which owns the property. - Incomplete description of work (omitting remote radio heads, new mounts, wire clips). - Missing Certificate of Occupancy for the supporting structure. - Inconsistent latitude/longitude coordinates between tower and property. - Noise report lacked proper signature and qualifications for Bethany Wu; address on report incorrect. - Insurance certificates had incorrect work site location ("Greenburgh" instead of "Hartsdale"). - Language in interference letter differed from prior standard; board requested standard language. - Fence description lacked clarity on privacy slats and concealment elements. - The board voted unanimously to deem the application incomplete. 313 Central Avenue – Verizon (Resubmission, January 28, 2026) - This application was originally submitted on November 3, 2025, and resubmitted on January 28, 2026; reviewed on February 5, 2026 (eight days later). - Deficiencies included: - Unclear ownership structure: Crown Castle, AP Wireless Investments, and Kalina Properties; affidavit needs correction to reflect proper authority. - Conflicting antenna center line heights between plans and RF report (T-Mobile 86 ft vs 88 ft; AT&T 71 ft vs 75 ft). - Noise study: letter provided a desktop determination without site measurement; board requested a noise profile (measurement or calculation). - Fence/concealment: color of antennas described only as "white" and "gray" without specifics; fence condition unclear (gaps, stairs outside fence). - Sign installation not verified (previous permit condition). - Address errors (Hartsdale vs Greenburgh) and inconsistent fire department contact. - The board voted unanimously to deem the application incomplete. Key Outcomes - Motion to find 300 West Hartsdale Avenue incomplete: Passed 3-0. The applicant must correct all listed items and resubmit. - Motion to find 313 Central Avenue incomplete: Passed 3-0. The applicant must address ownership, RF plan discrepancies, noise study, and concealment documentation. - Next steps: The board will reconvene at a future date to review resubmissions; no specific date set. - The meeting was adjourned after stamping and distributing copies of the completeness determination letters.

The Town of Greenburgh Antenna Review Board met on January 16, 2026, to review the application submission for ATT antennas at 280 North Central Avenue, Hartsdale, New York. Chair Catherine Letter led the meeting with board members Diane Torstrump and Donna Chonikman (absent). Town liaison Francis Sheehan attended, along with Steve Timateo of Aerosmith Development (in person) and Jake Lehman and Carissa Gust (via Zoom). The board reviewed each section of the application and determined that the submission remains incomplete, identifying specific corrections required. Application History - Initial submission: April 10, 2025; first reviewed April 15, 2025. - Second submission: August 13, 2025; reviewed August 19, 2025. - Third submission: November 10, 2025; meeting originally scheduled November 14, 2025, but was postponed at the applicant's request (stop clock stopped for 4 days), then held November 18, 2025. - Current submission received three days before this meeting. Discussion Items - Section A: Deemed complete after applicant identified specific individuals attesting and included RF engineer Emily McPherson's license number. - Section F: Incomplete due to misspelling "Mount Kisco" as "Mount Visco" in a notarized document; correction required. - Section G: Incomplete; the description of work referenced a drawing sheet (T01) that does not contain the required specifics. Board requested removal of the sheet reference and a clearer description of removal/installation activities. Also remove the word "so" from sentence "there will be no excavation" and change "ground level" to "roof level" on drawing A02. - Section N: Incomplete. The board requested a chart showing RF exposure/spillage to the sides and behind the antennas, not just in front. They cited a similar site (177 East Hartsdale Avenue) where such data was required. Applicant must provide written details and correct a rounding error (7.965 rounded to 7.9 should be 8.0). - Section P: Incomplete due to wording in the noise study conclusion. The board requested removing language after "ordinance" and adding "town of Greenburgh" to clarify the applicable code. - Section S: Incomplete. Numerous drawing deficiencies: remove confusion with government building label; include heights of all identified items; clarify a dotted line on A02 (whether it represents a cable run); include lighting information for entire ATT site; show signage locations on interior of doors at both roof doors; identify all doors; include height of platform with handrail and air scale height. - Section T: Incomplete regarding signage details: remove "below" (no image below), specify height (not higher than five feet), and material (aluminum). Key Outcomes - The board voted unanimously to deem the application incomplete. The motion was made, seconded, and carried by voice vote. - A list of required corrections was given to the applicant, who expects to resubmit within approximately two weeks. - The meeting was adjourned.

The Town of Greenburgh Building Leaf Jackson Room hosted a meeting on December 15, 2025, convened at approximately 6:15 PM. The board, with a quorum present, reviewed three applications for wireless facility modifications. All three were unanimously deemed incomplete due to missing information, generic reports, and inconsistencies. Review of Application 55 Jackson Avenue (Submitted December 3, 2025) - Board members Catherine Letter of Pasquette, Diane Torstrup, Francis Sheen (liaison), Lauren Bergberg, and Kenny McDonough were present; Paul Costa represented the applicant. Donna Chalakman was absent. - Deficiencies identified: - Item A: Missing license number for engineer Dennis (board noted Dennis is not a PE but a mechanical engineer; applicant argued a license number is not required per past practice). - Items B, N, P: Missing credentials for individuals referred to as “me and I”; generic noise and RF reports not site-specific (reports from a New Jersey factory used ambient data from that location, not the subject site). - Address inconsistencies: Application lists 55 Jackson Ave but drawings show 179 Jackson Ave; “Scarsdale” misspelled; zip code 10706 (Hastings) used instead of 10583 (Scarsdale). - Report dates: RF report shows both 4.5 and 3.33 as maximum; centerline does not match drawing. - Missing provider agreements for Verizon and T‑Mobile; language “affirmative obligation” needed change to “will take steps to correct.” - The board voted unanimously to deem the application incomplete. Review of Application 105 Po Street (likely 105 Post Road) - Similar deficiencies as the Jackson Avenue application: missing license number, credentials, incomplete provider documentation, generic reports, address errors, and date conflicts. - Board noted that two providers (Verizon and T‑Mobile) are on this site; description of work must include both, and all wireless providers must be documented. - Motion to deem incomplete passed unanimously. Review of Application 644 Fort Hill Road - Deficiencies mirrored those of the previous applications: license number, credentials, generic RF and noise reports, missing Verizon documentation, and inconsistent addresses. - Board unanimously deemed the application incomplete. Key Outcomes - All three applications (55 Jackson Avenue, 105 Po Street, 644 Fort Hill Road) were unanimously deemed incomplete. - The board will provide stamped copies of deficiencies to the applicant via the Building Department the following morning. - Applicant representatives (Paul Costa and Lauren Bergberg) asked clarifying questions on address corrections, post‑replacement timing, and required documentation; the board provided guidance. - Meeting adjourned after the three reviews. The applicant must resubmit corrected materials for each site.

The Antenna Review Board of the Town of Greenburgh convened on December 12, 2025, at Greenburgh Town Hall to review three applications for antenna modifications submitted by Crown Castle on behalf of T-Mobile. Board members Catherine Letter and Francis Sheehan were present (quorum of two out of three members; Andana Chonikman absent). No applicant representative attended the meeting. The board found all three applications incomplete due to numerous deficiencies and voted unanimously to deem them incomplete. Discussion Items Application 1 – 55 Jackson Avenue (Hastings-on-Hudson, not Greenburg) - Incomplete item A (Engineer qualifications): The applicant did not provide license numbers or qualifications for the senior mechanical engineer and engineering manager, nor did they submit an engineer stamp. - Incomplete item B (Applicant contact): Only a generic Verizon entity name and phone number were provided; no individual person or direct contact number. - Incomplete item C (Postal address): The proposed facility is on the town right-of-way; the nearest address was given as 55 Jackson Avenue but incorrectly listed as Greenburg, NY instead of Hastings-on-Hudson; the zip code and town name were inconsistent across documents. - Incomplete item G (Description of work): The description did not explicitly state that a new utility pole would replace the existing pole, though drawings indicated a new pole. - Incomplete item H (Certificate of completion): The certificate of completion referenced a street opening permit for 179 Jackson Avenue, which did not match the applicant’s stated address of 55 Jackson Avenue; the permit was expired (2020) and pertained to a different location. - Incomplete item N (RF monitoring plan): The plan submitted was generic (not site-specific), used a uniform centerline height of 33 feet and 10 feet, and referenced a noise assessment performed at a factory in New Jersey on “Cellar Street” rather than at the actual site; the average ambient noise level of 53.8 dB from that factory environment was not relevant to the residential area. - Incomplete item O (Interference & noise): The noise report was generic; the signature page was dated February 26, 2024, while the report itself was dated February 26, 2025 – a conflict. - Incomplete items on drawings: Ownership of antennas was not identified on all drawings; a new pole was proposed but not described in work scope; the height of the crown castle shroud was listed as 14 feet 8 inches on one page and 14 feet 9 inches on another; the zip code and town name on drawings (Scardale, 10583) did not match the application (10706, Hastings-on-Hudson). - Incomplete insurance certificates: The property insurance and general liability certificates listed the address as 179 Jackson Avenue, inconsistent with the applicant’s stated address of 55 Jackson Avenue. The board voted to deem this application incomplete. Application 2 – 644 Fort Hill Road - Same deficiencies as Application 1 for items A, B, N, and O (engineer qualifications, RF report non-site-specific, generic noise study, and inconsistent dates). - Incomplete item C (Postal address): The address was correct, but the answer reversed the order of the question. - Incomplete item E (Zoning district): The format used in the exhibit was different from prior applications and did not include node identification for T-Mobile or Crown Castle. - Incomplete item I (Co-location agreements): The applicant claimed Verizon’s upgrade was approved in 2017 via a right-of-way permit, but did not provide Exhibit 13 (referenced as supporting documentation); the exhibit was missing. The board stated that all wireless providers must be included in the application and that all upgrades have required board review since 1996. The answer was not compliant with the code. - Incomplete item J (Structural capacity): The structural report included guy wires and anchors, but these were not shown on the drawings; the board noted they needed to be drawn out and asked when the guy wires were added. - Incomplete drawings: Must include Verizon as a co-located provider; must identify equipment ownership on both poles on page 4 of 8; must show guy wires and anchors. The board voted to deem this application incomplete. Application 3 – 105 Poe Street - Same deficiencies as Applications 1 and 2 for items A, B, N, and O (engineer qualifications, generic RF and noise reports, date conflicts). - Incomplete item I (Co-location): Same issue with Verizon; the answer claimed prior upgrade but Exhibit 13 was missing; the board noted the response was not compliant with code requirements. - Incomplete drawings: Must include Verizon, must define equipment, must show all ownerships on both poles on page 4 of 8, must draw out guy wires and anchors. - Noise assessment and shroud height inconsistencies mirrored those of the previous applications. The board voted to deem this application incomplete. Key Outcomes - All three applications (for 55 Jackson Avenue, 644 Fort Hill Road, and 105 Poe Street) were unanimously voted incomplete by the board (2–0). - The board stamped each application with the date December 12, 2025, and directed that original and copy be left for the building department for pickup by the applicant. - The meeting was adjourned without further business.

The Antenna Review Board of the Town of Greenburgh met on November 18, 2025, at Town Hall to review a submission for 280 North Central Avenue. The board had previously reviewed submissions on April 15 and August 19, 2025, each time deeming them incomplete. The current submission was filed on November 10, 2025. After a detailed line-by-line review, the board voted unanimously to deem the application incomplete, identifying multiple deficiencies across sections A, F, G, N, O, P, Q, S, and T. The applicant's representative, Stephen of Aerosmith, agreed to revise and resubmit. Discussion Items - The chair noted the board had accommodated the applicant's request to change the meeting time twice and warned that this would not happen again. - The chair recommended the applicant examine a previous complete application by T-Mobile (Cudi and Feder) for guidance. - The board reviewed each component of the application, marking several items incomplete: - Section A: Incomplete. The affidavit of ownership was filed by an association rather than an individual, and the person attesting to the entire application lacked specificity regarding their area of expertise. - Section F: Incomplete. The affidavit of authorization required a specific individual's name and signature. - Section G: Incomplete. The description of work needed to be a sequential list rather than a paragraph, and "ground level" should be replaced with "roof or location appropriate". - Section N (RF emissions): Incomplete. The required chart of combined maximum output from all antennas on the property was not properly provided; center line numbers on the chart did not match the construction drawings. - Section O (Noise): Incomplete. The noise report referenced only ATT equipment, but the code requires evaluation of the entire site; the phrase "regular capacity" needed definition. - Section P (Schedule): Incomplete. The schedule lacked details on when old antennas would be removed and new ones installed on the dunnage, and whether equipment was new or being relocated. - Section Q (Noise follow-up): Incomplete. The monitoring plan was combined with a non-interference statement, failing to answer separately as requested. - Section S (Drawings): Incomplete. Many required elements (height above grade and sea level, identification of all antennas and appurtenances, owner/operator names, lighting details, color) were missing from the drawings. - Section T (Signage): Incomplete. The sign did not include the required permit number, date of issuance, and contact information in a single sign. - The board also noted that Section M was complete, and several other sections (B, C, D, E, H, I, J, K, L, U, V) were complete. - Stephen of Aerosmith acknowledged each issue and agreed to make the necessary revisions. Key Outcomes - The board voted unanimously (by voice vote) to deem the application incomplete. - The applicant was directed to revise and resubmit, with a reminder that further delays would not be accommodated. - The meeting was adjourned.

The Greenburgh Antenna Review Board met on November 10, 2025, at Town Hall to review two applications for modifications to wireless facilities. Present were Catherine Letter, Diane Torstrip, Frances Sheehan, and Michael Sheridan, constituting a quorum. The board examined each application against the town's requirements, identified numerous deficiencies, and voted unanimously to deem both applications incomplete. Application for 609 Sawmill River Road - General Issues: The radio frequency engineer's license number was missing; the address on drawings (609 North Central North Song River Road) differed from the application (609 Sawmill River Road); the property owner (Salmo Realty LLC) and pole owner were not clearly identified; the affidavit of authorization did not include the property owner granting permission to Verizon; and the relationship between Global Signal Acquisition and Crown was not established. - Site Conditions: The board visited the site and observed multiple metal containers inside the fenced compound, fences of varying heights (5 to 7 feet), overgrown vegetation, and climbing spokes/steps on the pole—a prohibited attractive nuisance. The drawings did not reflect these conditions. - RF Report and Drawings: The report's power density values at 50 feet showed inconsistent increments; the color key and identification of antennas were unclear; existing equipment labeled "ATT equipment" was not specific; and the locations of signs (including missing town-required signs) were not properly shown. - Insurance: The certificate of liability insurance did not name the town as an additional insured. - Vote: The board voted unanimously to deem the application incomplete, requiring corrections to credentials, addresses, ownership documents, site plan accuracy, sign identification, and insurance language. Application for 313 Central Avenue - Property Ownership Discrepancy: The application listed property owner as AP Wireless Investments LLC, while drawings showed Colonia Properties LLC. The pole owner (Crown Atlantic Company) needed to give Verizon explicit permission. - Height Conflicts: The structural analysis report stated the monopole height as 96 feet, but drawings showed 97.6 feet for the existing pole and 98 feet for Verizon antenna centerline—these must be reconciled. - Antenna Relocation: The description of work included relocating three antennas, but drawings did not clarify where they would be moved. - Existing Equipment: The site had unidentified antennas (labeled "unknown") and abandoned ATT equipment that had not been removed per code. - Fence and Site Details: The fence description was incomplete; the compound contained unlabeled equipment shelters (e.g., Sprint generator); drawings did not show existing overhead lines or signs; the color of appurtenant structures was missing; and climbing spokes were present on the pole. - Insurance: The general liability insurance did not include the town as an additional insured, and the property insurance description was blank. - Vote: The board voted unanimously to deem the application incomplete, requiring corrections to ownership documentation, height consistency, site plan accuracy, equipment identification, fence description, and insurance certificates. Key Outcomes - Both applications (609 Sawmill River Road and 313 Central Avenue) were unanimously deemed incomplete by the board. - The board required the applicants to submit corrected materials addressing all listed deficiencies before re-submission. - The board noted that existing town-required signs were missing at the 609 site and expressed concern that previous permit conditions were not complied with. - The meeting was adjourned at 6:16 PM.

The Town of Greenburgh Antenna Review Board met on November 7, 2025, to review a submission from Verizon Wireless for a proposed antenna modification at the Fenimore Road Site D parking lot near the Hartsdale train station. The application was submitted on October 31, 2025, and reviewed within seven days. The board found several deficiencies and unanimously voted to deem the application incomplete. Discussion Items Review of Application Completeness - Board members examined each required item (A through V) for the application. - Item A: The RF engineer's report lacked a professional engineer's stamp and license number. The board requested clarification on the engineer's credentials. - Item F (Affidavit of Ownership): The affidavit from the Hartsdale Public Parking District did not include the name of the board chair signing on behalf of the district. The board deemed it incomplete. - Item G (Description of Work): The description of all necessary work was not provided in a clear list; the board required a complete description. - Item D (Noise Profile): The board determined a noise profile was required, despite the applicant's argument that the equipment (antennas and cabling) does not generate noise and that a note stating compliance with the town's 65 dBA limit was sufficient. The board insisted on a formal noise profile citing the need for consistent standards. - Item P (Proposed Schedule): The board requested a targeted installation window to avoid past issues with incomplete work. The applicant had not provided a date range. - Item S (Drawings): Multiple drawing issues were noted: the top of structure height was inconsistent (84 ft vs 85 ft), equipment was not identified, tower owner was missing, and signage was not confirmed. - The board also noted that the structural analysis was based on 84 ft, but drawings showed 85 ft; this discrepancy needed correction. Key Outcomes - The board voted unanimously to deem the application incomplete due to the deficiencies listed above. - The applicant was directed to provide: RF engineer credentials, corrected affidavit with name of board chair, complete list of work, noise profile, target installation schedule, corrected drawings with consistent height, identification of equipment, and tower owner. - The board noted that once corrections are submitted, the application will be re-reviewed. Motion: To deem the application incomplete. Seconded. Vote: Unanimous.

The Greenburgh Town Board (members Catherine, Diane, Donna, and Francis Sheehan) met on October 24, 2025, at 6:32 PM (delayed due to technical problems) to review three applications filed by Crown Castle on behalf of T-Mobile for modifications to wireless facilities on utility poles. The board unanimously deemed all three applications incomplete due to multiple deficiencies, including missing engineer stamps, inconsistent addresses, lack of pole ownership identification, non-site-specific RF emissions reports, and unresolved tenant documentation issues. The applications were for 548 Ardsley Road, 35 Spring Valley Road, and 382 Ardsley Road. Key Deficiencies Identified for Each Application - 548 Ardsley Road: Missing engineer stamp for Ray Cap; inconsistent address (listed as 536-552 Ardsley Road); pole ownership not specified on drawings; structural assessment recommended by NBNC (bold comment on page 4 of Exhibit 2) requiring clarification; RF emissions report not site-specific (same 3.33% at 10 feet as other sites despite different antenna heights); noise report misspelled “Greenburgh” and used conditional language (“has met” and “if” regarding ions); lighting and sign dimensions not shown; no identification of pole owner on plans. - 35 Spring Valley Road: Similar deficiencies: missing engineer stamp, incomplete applicant info, non-site-specific RF report (again 3.33% at 10 feet for a 39-foot pole), same noise report issues, missing lighting/sign details, and contradiction about street light (drawing shows existing street light but table says none). - 382 Ardsley Road: All prior issues plus a critical additional problem: the application stated T-Mobile is the only tenant, but the RF report included Verizon as an existing tenant. The board noted Verizon has never been formally authorized or documented for this pole, requiring legalization. The RF report also had a typo (3.33% vs 4.5% on same page). Pole ownership and tenant identification needed on drawings. Public Comments & Testimony No public comments were received. Only the applicant’s representative, Lauren (from Crown Castle), was present to answer questions. Key Outcomes - Motion to deem 548 Ardsley Road incomplete: Unanimously approved. - Motion to deem 35 Spring Valley Road incomplete: Unanimously approved. - Motion to deem 382 Ardsley Road incomplete: Unanimously approved. - The board will provide scanned notes (via Francis Sheehan) and expects the applicant to resubmit complete applications. The clock is stopped as of October 14, 2025, the date of receipt. The applicant must reprint all pages, correct deficiencies (including site-specific RF reports, pole ownership, Verizon documentation), and resubmit.