Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Greenburgh Antenna Review Board Meeting - February 18, 2026

Meeting Portal — Wednesday, February 18, 2026

BodyGreenburgh, New York

SessionMeeting Portal

DateWednesday, February 18, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:54:38

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

0:07

This is the Greenberg Tona Greenberg antenna review board.

0:11

Today is February 18, 2026, Wednesday.

0:18

Before going forward, let's take attendance.

0:21

Catherine letter of Lasket Rezid, Diane Torstra.

0:25

Vocal.

0:26

Um yeah.

0:29

Um we have a quorum present in a publicly accessible location, the town of Granberg Town of Hall, BF Jackson Room.

0:40

We will convene this meeting.

0:46

Is that was submitted is for a hundred Clearbrook Road.

0:50

It was submitted by Aerosmith.

0:54

On behalf of, I believe ATT, but there are inconsistencies in the name throughout the report.

1:03

So it was submitted on the 11th of February 2026.

1:12

Today is the 18th of February 2026.

1:15

It was the first submission for this property by this applicant, and it is seven days since we first received it.

1:24

Let's get started.

1:27

Um starting with a it says names, addresses, and qualifications of persons preparing the report and his or her or their signatures attesting for the truth and completeness of the information contained therein.

1:53

The very first one says I have reviewed the application and attested to the truthfulness and completeness of the following documents.

2:01

It gives a date of February 3, 2026 for the noise study dated.

2:06

If you go to the noise study report, it's dated December 29, 2025.

2:12

On the interest.

2:24

Okay, I'll I'll get that one fixed.

2:26

I'm sorry about that.

2:35

Um the third one down.

2:40

I have reviewed the application and attest to the truthfulness and completeness of the following documents.

2:46

This is Emily.

2:48

It says one, it says this tells us to go to G.

2:58

And it says the date is the 6th of February 2026.

3:05

And if I go to, I'm sorry, F and I go to this page with her name, it's signed 1-5, 2026.

3:15

That was the same, a similar thing.

3:20

Something that we will note later is that the address is on each of the after each of the places where it's located must be the same.

3:28

You use North Elmsford and you use Ellingsford interchangeably.

3:32

They are not interested.

3:43

Umissions report, which has its own issues.

4:17

One thing that would be really really helpful is tabs.

4:22

And if you can't do tabs, I'm starting to I literally haven't here, and that's why I couldn't find the creative solder when we submitted the application.

4:31

Yeah, we can break that down as well.

4:35

Okay, one so on F it we noted that that address that date should be one five.

4:40

Let's look at G to make sure that this statement is actually dated correctly.

4:44

Um, this is we are not commenting on what's in the reports at this time, but we're looking as simply at what you're representing, and the date on this is one five, twenty twenty-six.

4:56

So this too is incorrect.

4:58

All dates are wrong.

5:12

Yeah, because these were last minute revisions, and I didn't even look at the first page.

5:22

Right.

5:42

That is incomplete.

5:43

I wrote all dates provided need to be checked and corrected.

5:48

Okay.

6:33

See references a date.

6:38

And I'm not seeing any date.

6:41

I'm okay.

6:42

It's up here.

6:42

Got it.

7:17

So that's what I have written there.

7:19

Is all dates provided need to be checked and uh corrected where needed.

7:25

Um B.

7:27

You cite the ATT and Mobility Corporation as the operator and applicant.

7:40

Everywhere else in here it's ATT or singular, or or there's no other reference that I saw that mentions this entity.

7:49

Agency mobility corporation?

7:51

Yeah.

7:52

Okay.

7:52

So if somebody's responsible for it, it needs to be consistent that the name responsible throughout who's making this application is that entity.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Engineering And Infrastructure█████████████████████████████████████████████61%

Insurance And Liability███████10%

Noise Ordinance███████9%

Technology and Innovation██████8%

Procedural████5%

Public Engagement███4%

Public Safety██3%

Summary of Proceedings

Greenburgh Antenna Review Board Meeting - February 18, 2026

The Greenburgh Antenna Review Board convened on February 18, 2026, at the Town Hall BF Jackson Room to review an application for a wireless facility modification at 100 Clearbrook Road, submitted by Aerosmith on behalf of ATT/Singular. The board conducted a detailed line-by-line review of the application, identifying numerous deficiencies including inconsistent addresses, missing signatures, cut-and-paste errors, and incomplete documentation. The board voted unanimously to deem the application incomplete, requiring significant revisions before resubmission.

Discussion Items

Application Review Overview: The board reviewed the application for 100 Clearbrook Road, submitted on February 11, 2026, exactly seven days prior. The chair noted that the applicant's name appeared inconsistently throughout the report (ATT, ATT Mobility Corporation, Singular).
Date and Address Inconsistencies: Multiple dates in the application were incorrect (e.g., noise study dated December 29, 2025 vs. February 3, 2026; signature dates of February 6, 2026 vs. January 5, 2026). The address was listed interchangeably as "North Elmsford" and "Elmsford" and must be consistent. The property parcel number also varied.
Affidavit and Ownership Issues: The affidavit lacked a person's name signing on behalf of the applicant. The board requested clarification on who owns the installation (operator vs. applicant vs. owner), noting that the lease referenced "New Singular Wireless PCS" without explanation. The board emphasized that the applicant must clearly identify the responsible entity.
Cut-and-Paste Errors: The application contained cut-and-paste language from other projects, including a reference to removal of roof dunnage for which no building permit existed. The board expressed concern about accuracy and required removal of all cut-and-paste content.
Generator and Structural Issues: The application stated "no generator on site," but the board questioned whether this meant the building itself had no generator. The structural report only covered antenna supports, not the roof; the board required a PE letter addressing the roof's ability to support the installation.
Antenna Descriptions and Drawings: The board noted that existing antennas were listed under section K when they should be in section M (proposed). They requested a clear statement of "existing" and "proposed" antennas. The RF report lacked centerline elevations for T-Mobile antennas, and the diagrams used vague terms like "left of antenna" without identifying which antenna. The board required centerlines and consistent height measurements.
Noise Report: The noise report was praised as the best received, with actual measurements from the site. The only corrections needed were date and address.
Monitoring Plan: The monitoring plan used incorrect language, changing "receive" to "hear" and capitalizing letters inappropriately. The board required correction to match standard language from other applicants.
Signage and Lighting: The board discovered that ATT was missing a required sign on the access door, placing them in violation. The applicant was urged to install the missing sign and show it on revised plans. Lighting on the rooftop was also questioned; the board required a statement that no lighting exists or is proposed.
Insurance: The description of operations on the insurance certificate needed the correct address (100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, New York) and town name (Greenburgh, not White Plains). The board also noted that the description would be submitted to the town's insurance broker for review.

Key Outcomes

Motion to Deem Application Incomplete: A motion was made and seconded to deem the application for 100 Clearbrook Road as incomplete. All board members voted in favor, and the application was stamped accordingly.
Directives for Resubmission: The applicant must correct all dates, addresses, and names for consistency; provide a complete affidavit with a person's name; include ownership details; remove cut-and-paste content; add centerlines and proper antenna labeling; install the missing sign; and address all other deficiencies noted in the review.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:46 PM.

Meeting Transcript

This is the Greenberg Tona Greenberg antenna review board. Today is February 18, 2026, Wednesday. Before going forward, let's take attendance. Catherine letter of Lasket Rezid, Diane Torstra. Vocal. Um yeah. Um we have a quorum present in a publicly accessible location, the town of Granberg Town of Hall, BF Jackson Room. We will convene this meeting. Is that was submitted is for a hundred Clearbrook Road. It was submitted by Aerosmith. On behalf of, I believe ATT, but there are inconsistencies in the name throughout the report. So it was submitted on the 11th of February 2026. Today is the 18th of February 2026. It was the first submission for this property by this applicant, and it is seven days since we first received it. Let's get started. Um starting with a it says names, addresses, and qualifications of persons preparing the report and his or her or their signatures attesting for the truth and completeness of the information contained therein. The very first one says I have reviewed the application and attested to the truthfulness and completeness of the following documents. It gives a date of February 3, 2026 for the noise study dated. If you go to the noise study report, it's dated December 29, 2025. On the interest. Okay, I'll I'll get that one fixed. I'm sorry about that. Um the third one down. I have reviewed the application and attest to the truthfulness and completeness of the following documents. This is Emily. It says one, it says this tells us to go to G. And it says the date is the 6th of February 2026. And if I go to, I'm sorry, F and I go to this page with her name, it's signed 1-5, 2026. That was the same, a similar thing. Something that we will note later is that the address is on each of the after each of the places where it's located must be the same. You use North Elmsford and you use Ellingsford interchangeably. They are not interested. Umissions report, which has its own issues. One thing that would be really really helpful is tabs. And if you can't do tabs, I'm starting to I literally haven't here, and that's why I couldn't find the creative solder when we submitted the application. Yeah, we can break that down as well. Okay, one so on F it we noted that that address that date should be one five. Let's look at G to make sure that this statement is actually dated correctly. Um, this is we are not commenting on what's in the reports at this time, but we're looking as simply at what you're representing, and the date on this is one five, twenty twenty-six. So this too is incorrect. All dates are wrong. Yeah, because these were last minute revisions, and I didn't even look at the first page. Right. That is incomplete. I wrote all dates provided need to be checked and corrected. Okay. See references a date. And I'm not seeing any date. I'm okay. It's up here.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com