Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Greenburgh Antenna Review Board Meeting - December 12, 2025 - Three Applications Deemed Incomplete

Meeting Portal — Friday, December 12, 2025

BodyGreenburgh, New York

SessionMeeting Portal

DateFriday, December 12, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 2:33:43

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:04

Today is December 12th, 2025.

0:09

This is the antenna review board convening at the town of Greenburg Town Hall.

0:15

I'm going to take attendance to make sure we have a quorum present.

0:19

Catherine Letter of Lasquette here.

0:25

So Andana Chonikman is not here today.

0:29

Have a quorum because we have two people of the three who are on the board.

0:33

Francis Sheehan.

0:35

Present.

0:40

And we have we have nobody apparently here from the applicant.

0:45

That is unfortunate because it's much better when they actually can ask questions and clarify anything they don't understand, but they will have the opportunity to go back to this recording and see what we say.

0:57

So getting started, there were three applications submitted documents that constituted applications.

1:19

So nine days have passed.

1:27

Are as they answered the question that was raised at the last time they submitted for three other sites about the need for an engineer stamp.

1:39

They explained that the engineer for RayCap.

1:42

Um and they give the names are senior mechanical engineer and executive engineering manager.

1:47

They do not provide any of the question reads names, addresses, and qualifications of persons preparing the report and his or her or their signatures.

1:57

The first two are engineers with professional stamps.

2:01

The second two names, the third and fourth names, one is a senior mechanical engineer and one is an engineer manager, engineering manager.

2:10

They say that there is no stamp provided for an um a senior mechanical engineer.

2:15

I actually went online to find out what kind of information is provided.

2:19

What do you get after you do this study?

2:21

And you get a license number.

2:23

So if they don't have a stamp, they can provide the license number.

2:26

We do need qualifications, just like it says in the question, and they have not provided qualifications for either dentists, they cannot the senior mechanical engineer, or for me, the engineering manager.

2:40

And we need both license and or could and could license number for the senior mechanical engineer and credentials for the engineering manager.

2:50

So that is incomplete.

2:57

On the next one on B, it's names, addresses, and landline inside here, phone numbers of the property owner, operator, and applicant.

3:04

They provide um for the property owner, poll owner, and operator, but they do not provide an applicant.

3:10

They also do not provide a person, they provide an entity, Verizon, and they give two numbers, generic number, they give one number.

3:18

Um the purpose of this is not simply to fill out a form, it's to actually provide a number that someone can be contacted at.

3:24

And since we have no person and no contact number for a person, this is incomplete.

3:34

In C the proposed postal address and street block and lot of the parcel number of the property.

3:40

Um, this is the proposed facility is located on the town's right-of-way and not assigned a sheet block and lot number.

3:47

The nearest reference for nearest address for reference for reference is 55 Jackson Avenue, and then they call it Greenberg, New York.

3:53

It is not Greenburg, New York, it's Hastings, Hastings on Hudson.

3:57

So they need to correct and um and I should be writing these in as we go.

4:24

To my knowledge, only one section of this town, and that's the town hall has adopted Greenberg as it's allowed to use.

4:32

Is allowed to use greenbird.

4:34

So they're not allowed to use this, and that would never get to anybody if it was mailed.

4:38

So they need to correct.

4:39

Um you go back and put in in the first one.

4:49

Second one.

5:13

Somebody's having a good time.

6:10

So for DIS and coordinates is requested and it is provided.

6:18

So that G is complete.

6:25

E zoning district in which the property is situated.

6:29

They provide the zoning district for the R20.

6:32

So it is complete.

6:35

If the F if the installation is pursuant to a lease agreement confirmation from the lessor that the lease E is authorized to utilize the property.

7:10

And they provide the latitude and longitude and the crown ID and the T mobile node, crown node, and street address all in it, which allows us to know that this is what the this is applying to.

7:23

So F is complete.

7:26

G we've had this before where it was not clear, and I don't again, it's unfortunate that somebody is not here because we've had an application that had a new poll being added, and that wasn't identified in their answer, but is now has now become a regular question.

7:49

So although the answer to the question of a description of all work necessary to complete um including construction and install the proposed modification, include any necessary excavation, is a comprehensive answer, it doesn't tell us if there's a new poll or not.

8:05

So I'm going to write if this is acceptable to both of you that I'm going to write complete, but I'm not going to write um I'm going to write as a qualifier that if a new poll is required, it is not complete.

8:18

Okay.

8:33

So it's conditional completely.

9:01

On H it says provide a copy of the certificate of completion issued by the town of Greenberg for the support structure of the existing antennas for utility poll the right of way, provide the poll owner's number and address.

9:13

Well, as well as identification number of for the poll.

9:20

They write the proposed facility do not receive a building permit or a subsequent certificate of completion.

9:25

I did go and look at um exhibit seven.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Engineering And Infrastructure██████████████████████████████████████████42%

Procedural█████████████████17%

Insurance And Liability████████████████16%

Technology and Innovation████████████████16%

Noise Ordinance███████7%

Miscellaneous██2%

Summary of Proceedings

Greenburgh Antenna Review Board Meeting - December 12, 2025

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.

Meeting Transcript

Today is December 12th, 2025. This is the antenna review board convening at the town of Greenburg Town Hall. I'm going to take attendance to make sure we have a quorum present. Catherine Letter of Lasquette here. So Andana Chonikman is not here today. Have a quorum because we have two people of the three who are on the board. Francis Sheehan. Present. And we have we have nobody apparently here from the applicant. That is unfortunate because it's much better when they actually can ask questions and clarify anything they don't understand, but they will have the opportunity to go back to this recording and see what we say. So getting started, there were three applications submitted documents that constituted applications. So nine days have passed. Are as they answered the question that was raised at the last time they submitted for three other sites about the need for an engineer stamp. They explained that the engineer for RayCap. Um and they give the names are senior mechanical engineer and executive engineering manager. They do not provide any of the question reads names, addresses, and qualifications of persons preparing the report and his or her or their signatures. The first two are engineers with professional stamps. The second two names, the third and fourth names, one is a senior mechanical engineer and one is an engineer manager, engineering manager. They say that there is no stamp provided for an um a senior mechanical engineer. I actually went online to find out what kind of information is provided. What do you get after you do this study? And you get a license number. So if they don't have a stamp, they can provide the license number. We do need qualifications, just like it says in the question, and they have not provided qualifications for either dentists, they cannot the senior mechanical engineer, or for me, the engineering manager. And we need both license and or could and could license number for the senior mechanical engineer and credentials for the engineering manager. So that is incomplete. On the next one on B, it's names, addresses, and landline inside here, phone numbers of the property owner, operator, and applicant. They provide um for the property owner, poll owner, and operator, but they do not provide an applicant. They also do not provide a person, they provide an entity, Verizon, and they give two numbers, generic number, they give one number. Um the purpose of this is not simply to fill out a form, it's to actually provide a number that someone can be contacted at. And since we have no person and no contact number for a person, this is incomplete. In C the proposed postal address and street block and lot of the parcel number of the property. Um, this is the proposed facility is located on the town's right-of-way and not assigned a sheet block and lot number. The nearest reference for nearest address for reference for reference is 55 Jackson Avenue, and then they call it Greenberg, New York. It is not Greenburg, New York, it's Hastings, Hastings on Hudson. So they need to correct and um and I should be writing these in as we go. To my knowledge, only one section of this town, and that's the town hall has adopted Greenberg as it's allowed to use. Is allowed to use greenbird. So they're not allowed to use this, and that would never get to anybody if it was mailed. So they need to correct. Um you go back and put in in the first one. Second one. Somebody's having a good time. So for DIS and coordinates is requested and it is provided. So that G is complete. E zoning district in which the property is situated. They provide the zoning district for the R20. So it is complete. If the F if the installation is pursuant to a lease agreement confirmation from the lessor that the lease E is authorized to utilize the property. And they provide the latitude and longitude and the crown ID and the T mobile node, crown node, and street address all in it, which allows us to know that this is what the this is applying to.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com