Hi, today is the 9th of September 2025.

This is the antenna review board meeting in a publicly available space at the town of Greenberg in the Lee F.

Jackson room.

It is 1 p.m.

And let me take attendance.

Donna Chonikman.

Here.

Diane Torstrop.

Yeah.

Catherine Letter of Plasquette here.

And with us, we also have our board liaison Francis Sheehan.

Present.

And we have Paul Costa from Crown Castle.

Present.

And we shall get started.

We are reviewing a submission for by Crown Castle on behalf of T Mobile for 155 Highland Road.

The first submission was on the 12 in December 10, 2024.

We convened six days later.

On the 16th of December 2024 for a meeting, it was marked incomplete.

On the second the second submission was more than four months later, was on April 7th, 2025.

We met on the uh 10th of April, three days later, was marked incomplete.

The next submission was the following month on the 6th of May 2025.

We met six days later on the 12th of May.

Then two months later, a submission on the 7th of July.

We convened on the 14th of July 2025, seven days later, and we granted it an a conditional completeness, which was to be, and we let the applicant choose the date by which it was going to be submitted, and that was 21.

Um that was to be submitted by the 21st of July 2025, close of business.

On the 18th of July, um we received a submission, which was reviewed by the 21st of July and deemed incomplete.

At the request of one of the staff members who was wrote us because the person representing the application was on vacation.

And materials were submitted by the close of business, but they were reviewed and deemed incomplete.

And the conditional complete incomplete conditional incomplete, the conditional complete status had uh time allocation had been um run out.

So we deemed it, we met agreed to meet so that we could go over what was not provided, which we did, um, and on the we met on the 4th of August and explained what the omissions were, and on the 3rd of September 2025, we received a submission, and this is the 9th of September, and we are here to in 2025, six days later, and we're here to review it.

Well was we're only looking at what was deemed incomplete.

So A, B, C, and D had been deemed complete.

E had been deemed complete.

What was incomplete was F.

We did not have any address or identification on the list and requ required that and asked that all the all the addresses be provided.

Um which in the application we cannot revert to the letter that was submitted because the letter is not part of the application, although one line that is in the letter, it would have been great if it had been in the application.

But the letter's not part of the application.

No, it's not.

That's you could omit the whole letter.

This letter is not this is not the application.

This is the application.

Okay.

This is the legal this is the legal document.

This is what someone writes to say hi.

Okay.

So F actually provides the information.

It shows the um the last line provides the information.

The request um exhibit 12 shows that the note associated with this application is contracted between um Crown Castle and T Mobile.

What that actually does is provide the addresses we required so that we actually knew what the site was and that that the um and is in a document that provides that information.

So if you turn to exhibit 12, the last page of the application of the document itself provides table A, and the site is highlighted in the yellow.

This is a page.

Oh you can turn to very well page.

It has what we needed, which is what are we looking at in the table A, the is the addresses on the last page of the whole for sure.

We'll go through.

So in my opinion, it is now complete.

If anybody sees something that we had required, identify the site on the contract by address, which it has done.

So is there anybody objecting to that?

No.

Gave us what we asked for.