Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Greenburgh Antenna Review Board Meeting - March 16, 2026: ATT Application Deemed Incomplete

Meeting Portal — Monday, March 16, 2026

BodyGreenburgh, New York

SessionMeeting Portal

DateMonday, March 16, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:25:01

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

0:05

Today is March 16th, 2026.

0:11

This is the town of Greenberg Town Hall.

0:14

It is the convening of the Antenna Review Board.

0:19

We will take attendance.

0:22

Catherine letter of Flasquette here.

0:24

Diane Torstrup.

0:26

We have a quorum in a publicly accessible location, the Lee F.

0:32

Jackson room at the town of Greenberg.

0:35

Francis Sheehan.

0:36

Present.

0:37

Matthew.

0:38

Lindbaum.

0:39

Lindbaum.

0:40

Present.

0:42

The applicant.

0:44

And let's get started.

0:45

This is for site 301-305 Old Sarah Town Road.

0:50

It is for the for an ATT for ATT.

0:57

The first submission was back in 2024.

1:00

Only other submission was in 2024, December 10, 2024.

1:04

We reviewed it on the 16th of December 2024, which was six days later.

1:12

The second submission was last Friday, which was 313 2026.

1:16

And today is 316 2026, three days later.

1:33

There was a request for correction of spelling, and it was made for B.

1:40

The zoning district was deemed, which was E was also deemed complete.

1:47

That said, we get to another point where this calls it an OB district.

1:53

And then in the noise report, it calls it a in a residential district.

1:58

So I think there's a discrepancy in that description.

2:04

We'll get to that.

2:06

In the inst, which is about if the installation is pursuant to a lease agreement, confirmation from the lessor that the lease C is authorized to utilize the property.

2:16

We had asked for the Crown giving permission.

2:20

We are directed.

2:21

This is F.

2:24

We are directed to go to section two.

2:33

And this is a problem we've been having with just about everybody, which is on the affidavit.

2:39

It doesn't have a person.

2:42

So it has an entity being duly sworn and saying that they reside at.

2:48

So we need a person on behalf of.

3:09

If you read the top of it, it says company by attorney in fact wireless, blah blah blah, being duly sworn, and says that he she resides at.

3:18

We need a person who says on behalf of this entity.

4:06

The description of all work necessary to complete, including construct construct and install the proposed modifications, including any necessary excavation.

4:13

To my eye, the corrections have been made and it's now complete.

4:17

I don't know if anybody feels differently.

4:21

So I that's complete.

5:00

Um, in the reason I wanted to go and look at this is because this is for antennas.

5:03

We had marked this complete the last time, so it is complete, but in the future, should you be submitting other ones?

5:10

It's the way the law is written, it's written for the structure, not the antennas.

5:16

And although the C of O should take that into consideration when it's issued, in following closely with what the law requests, it requests for the structure.

5:26

So it's sometimes that is way too long ago.

5:28

We need to change that when we update.

5:30

Okay, so it's fine.

5:32

So understood, but going forward, you want when the C of O is issued, you want the whole thing we want the C of O for the structure.

5:41

Okay.

5:42

So for the monopol.

5:43

Okay.

5:44

So this was done a long time before some of the other this there was this was issued in 216, 2016.

5:53

So I think it was probably around 212, maybe first one up, so that's what we would be looking for.

5:58

But we have beamed it complete, and it is complete.

6:02

Um we need to fix that because it should be the most recent font.

6:09

Unless you want one in a bad to open.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Engineering And Infrastructure███████████████████████████████████████39%

Technology and Innovation█████████████████████████████29%

Insurance And Liability█████████████13%

Procedural█████████9%

Noise Ordinance████4%

Pending Litigation███3%

Affordable Housing██2%

Transportation Safety█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Greenburgh Antenna Review Board Meeting - March 16, 2026

On March 16, 2026, the Town of Greenburgh Antenna Review Board convened to review a proposal by AT&T for antenna modifications at 301-305 Old Sarah Town Road. The application, first submitted in December 2024, was found incomplete after detailed review of multiple items. The board voted unanimously to deem the application incomplete and provided a list of required corrections.

Discussion Items

Application Completeness Review: The board systematically examined each section (A through V) of the application, identifying missing or inconsistent information.
Zoning District Discrepancy: The application cited an "OB" district in the zoning description, but the noise report referred to a "residential district." The board noted this contradiction and requested clarification.
Frequency Modulation & Classification: Item L required the applicant to identify frequency, modulation, and class of each antenna. The submitted table listed "service," "frequency," "transmit," and "receive" but not modulation or class. The board instructed the applicant to rename columns to match the required terms.
RF Emissions Report: Items N1–N3 were incomplete. The board required a cumulative emissions chart showing worst-case scenario for all antennas on the site, including T‑Mobile (future antennas should be included without the "future" label). A monitoring plan must state compliance and be submitted annually by January 31.
Noise Report: The report included an unexplained exemption for sounds generated by the Town Department of Public Works, which the board found irrelevant. Additionally, the report described the site as being in a "residential district," while the zoning appears to be OB‑1. The board will confirm zoning and requested removal or clarification of the public works exemption.
Affidavit (Item F): The affidavit was signed by an entity rather than a named individual. The board required a person to swear on behalf of the entity.
Schedule (Item Q): The proposed schedule was vague. The board required a statement that construction days will be consecutive, not contingent on permitting delays.
Concealment Elements (Item R): The application lacked a narrative confirming that antennas will remain concealed inside the pole and all appurtenances will be in the basement. The board provided example language.
Drawings and Plans (Item S): Several items were missing or incorrect: centerline height was not labeled; "future" T‑Mobile antennas should be included; hoist grip height, all elevations above sea level, color, material, lighting, and signage location must be shown. The owner of the pole (Crown Castle) must be correctly identified.
Insurance (Item V): The certificate of liability insurance listed White Plains as the town instead of Greenburgh. The description of operations did not include the site address and incorrectly included "if required by written contract." The board instructed corrections.
Noise Report Measurements: The noise study was performed on-site with microphones, and ambient noise levels were extracted from traffic noise. The board accepted the methodology but questioned the inclusion of a public works exemption.

Key Outcomes

Motion to deem application incomplete: Made, seconded, and passed unanimously by voice vote.
Required corrections documented: The board provided a detailed checklist (items F, L, N1‑N3, Q, R, S, V) and will confirm zoning district (OB vs. residential) via official map.
Next Steps: The applicant must resubmit corrected documents. The board did not set a specific deadline but encouraged prompt resubmission.

Meeting Transcript

Today is March 16th, 2026. This is the town of Greenberg Town Hall. It is the convening of the Antenna Review Board. We will take attendance. Catherine letter of Flasquette here. Diane Torstrup. We have a quorum in a publicly accessible location, the Lee F. Jackson room at the town of Greenberg. Francis Sheehan. Present. Matthew. Lindbaum. Lindbaum. Present. The applicant. And let's get started. This is for site 301-305 Old Sarah Town Road. It is for the for an ATT for ATT. The first submission was back in 2024. Only other submission was in 2024, December 10, 2024. We reviewed it on the 16th of December 2024, which was six days later. The second submission was last Friday, which was 313 2026. And today is 316 2026, three days later. There was a request for correction of spelling, and it was made for B. The zoning district was deemed, which was E was also deemed complete. That said, we get to another point where this calls it an OB district. And then in the noise report, it calls it a in a residential district. So I think there's a discrepancy in that description. We'll get to that. In the inst, which is about if the installation is pursuant to a lease agreement, confirmation from the lessor that the lease C is authorized to utilize the property. We had asked for the Crown giving permission. We are directed. This is F. We are directed to go to section two. And this is a problem we've been having with just about everybody, which is on the affidavit. It doesn't have a person. So it has an entity being duly sworn and saying that they reside at. So we need a person on behalf of. If you read the top of it, it says company by attorney in fact wireless, blah blah blah, being duly sworn, and says that he she resides at. We need a person who says on behalf of this entity. The description of all work necessary to complete, including construct construct and install the proposed modifications, including any necessary excavation. To my eye, the corrections have been made and it's now complete. I don't know if anybody feels differently. So I that's complete. Um, in the reason I wanted to go and look at this is because this is for antennas. We had marked this complete the last time, so it is complete, but in the future, should you be submitting other ones? It's the way the law is written, it's written for the structure, not the antennas. And although the C of O should take that into consideration when it's issued, in following closely with what the law requests, it requests for the structure. So it's sometimes that is way too long ago. We need to change that when we update.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com