OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Greenburgh Planning Board Review of Telecom Applications - September 3, 2026

Meeting Portal — Thursday, September 3, 2026
BodyGreenburgh, New York
SessionMeeting Portal
DateThursday, September 3, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:28:32

Transcript — Verbatim
1:52:00

No audio going up.

1:52:02

No, there is, but no idea.

1:52:08

Um Applicant is not correct.

1:52:21

Aerosmith votes on behalf of that presenting.

1:52:44

Since we don't have a previous application, we don't know if new singular is correct or not, but we have to accept it as it is.

1:55:04

And in the license agreement presented, it's not the owner.

1:55:14

So yes, it's from 2015, but we don't have anything representing the sale, the buy these these owner, the old owner, and there's nothing about Aerosmith.

1:55:32

So it is incomplete and needs a person who's going to do a screen.

1:56:29

Any exploiting background.

1:56:47

As well as the covers and signature page.

1:56:51

The answer doesn't make you read the answer.

1:56:56

We're looking at F right in the beginning.

1:57:10

Is it Q that I can write is the answer is incomplete?

1:57:34

Right.

1:57:53

Some reason.

1:57:54

Yeah.

1:57:55

I wrote the answer is incomplete.

1:58:00

So what it says is a person needs to be identified as the we're an F well what Q.

1:58:07

We're in F.

1:58:09

If a person needs to be identified as being duly, a person needs to be identified as being duly sworn.

1:58:15

Two, Aerosmith is not referenced in the lease or any supporting document.

1:58:19

Three, the answer is incomplete.

1:58:36

So that's incomplete.

1:58:37

Then it would G, a description of all word necessary.

1:58:44

What makes it be it?

1:58:47

They mean the they don't mean schedule Q, they mean question Q.

1:58:50

They mean question Q with identity.

1:58:54

That's what this is to be all work reflected.

1:59:03

This is the same issue we've had before.

1:59:04

They need to identify wires, cables, anything being removed, and it should be listed, and they don't do that.

1:59:12

So they agree on the two weeks of the things with they got bad.

1:59:20

And the numbers are the same.

1:59:58

Okay.

2:00:00

Up to provide a certain uh certificate of completion.

2:00:08

So if it became the noise report, does no I know we're not there.

2:00:23

Does noise report have to be done on the block?

2:00:26

No, because it's on this page.

2:00:30

Sorry, continue.

2:00:41

And this is for the facility on the roof.

2:00:47

I'm not able to ascertain whether it says ATNT or singular somewhere here.

2:01:08

So this is Francis, does it have the um zoning district?

2:01:15

No.

2:01:17

There are other pages that have it as a P Did you have the zoning district simply, sir?

2:01:25

There's other pages in the zoning compliance form.

2:01:28

It has it as a PD.

2:01:36

Um, and I because I is complete.

2:01:48

And this is where the question of the structural analysis and the dates of it.

2:02:49

So the report by Gregory is dated the same day that stands, which is from November twenty five.

2:03:04

It is the GT wireless engineering that is not a current report.

2:03:12

We need a current report.

2:04:01

We don't have that was from a different applicant, and they did not complete it.

2:04:06

Oh they only they only sent in one, she was never that it must be that when they first went up from the zoning application, not a zoning permit.

2:04:17

But um there was a revisit of it and it was not completed.

2:05:38

So K to my eye is complete.

2:06:00

Okay, so um the CAD drawing a little further down.

2:06:06

No, no, that is K.

2:06:07

This is the right section.

2:06:09

Um the CAD drawing shows more antennas than that being installed.

2:06:15

Um A O three.

2:06:38

But uh two per sectors, that's six total, and then one Ericsson, which is one per sector, three total, that's already nine, and then another one perceptor, three total, and then another uh added on.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Engineering And Infrastructure███████████████████████████████████████39%
Insurance And Liability████████████████████████24%
Procedural████████████████16%
Noise Ordinance████████████12%
Miscellaneous███████7%
Public Safety██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Greenburgh Planning Board Review of Telecom Applications - September 3, 2026

The Greenburgh Planning Board met on September 3, 2026, to review three applications for modifications to telecommunications facilities. The board conducted detailed completeness checks on two applications, identifying significant deficiencies in documentation, structural analysis, noise reports, and site identification. Decisions were made to deem one application incomplete and to pause review of another pending address verification.

Discussion Items

Application for 525 Executive Boulevard

  • The board reviewed each checklist item. They found the answer incomplete: the applicant (Aerosmith) was not referenced in the lease or supporting documents, and a duly sworn person was not identified.
  • The structural analysis report by Gregory, dated November 25, 2025, was deemed outdated and from a different applicant.
  • The CAD drawing (AO3) showed a discrepancy: 12 antennas were depicted, but the application stated 9. The board questioned whether the antennas constitute a macro cell (three grouped as one), which would affect the count. They requested clarification on macro cell definition.
  • The noise report used calculated DBA values (extracting traffic noise) rather than measured values. The board noted confusion between ambient noise and background noise and requested measured DBA values alongside calculated ones.
  • The color code (RAL 7035) was not approved by the zoning board, and the drawings lacked a side view, building height measurements, and parapet details.
  • Insurance coverage had expired (general liability). The board deemed the application incomplete.

Application for 460 Sawmill River Road (Address Disputed)

  • The building department indicated the correct address is 0 Sawmill River Road (parcel 8.430-305-7.3), not 460 Sawmill River Road as submitted. The parcel identification and ownership (listed as Ground Castle Energy) were also in question.
  • The board agreed to stop the shot clock (the review period) and instructed the applicant to confirm the correct address and parcel number. If the address is indeed 0 Sawmill River Road, the entire application must be resubmitted based on the correct tower.
  • The board noted that even if the address is corrected, the structural analysis and other reports would need to be rechecked for the correct monopole.

General Technical Issues

  • The board discussed the definition of a macro cell and how antenna counts should be treated, referencing past practice of counting three antennas as one macro cell for functionality.
  • The noise report methodology was questioned, and the board emphasized the need for measured DBA values and clear distinction between ambient and background noise.
  • The board stressed that drawings must include side views, building height above grade, parapet details, and a statement about edge protection for safety.
  • The color and finish of equipment must be approved by the board; RAL codes alone are insufficient if not matched to manufacturer specifications.

Key Outcomes

  • Motion to deem 525 Executive Boulevard application incomplete: Passed. The applicant must provide an updated structural analysis, corrected antenna count and macro cell justification, complete noise measurements, approved color details, missing drawings, and valid insurance.
  • Motion to stop the shot clock on the 460 Sawmill River Road application: Approved. The applicant must verify the correct address (likely 0 Sawmill River Road) and parcel number before further review. The board will hold the application pending this clarification.
  • Motion to pause recording and have copies stamped: Passed. The board took a brief recess to process documents and continue the meeting.

Meeting Transcript

No audio going up. No, there is, but no idea. Um Applicant is not correct. Aerosmith votes on behalf of that presenting. Since we don't have a previous application, we don't know if new singular is correct or not, but we have to accept it as it is. And in the license agreement presented, it's not the owner. So yes, it's from 2015, but we don't have anything representing the sale, the buy these these owner, the old owner, and there's nothing about Aerosmith. So it is incomplete and needs a person who's going to do a screen. Any exploiting background. As well as the covers and signature page. The answer doesn't make you read the answer. We're looking at F right in the beginning. Is it Q that I can write is the answer is incomplete? Right. Some reason. Yeah. I wrote the answer is incomplete. So what it says is a person needs to be identified as the we're an F well what Q. We're in F. If a person needs to be identified as being duly, a person needs to be identified as being duly sworn. Two, Aerosmith is not referenced in the lease or any supporting document. Three, the answer is incomplete. So that's incomplete. Then it would G, a description of all word necessary. What makes it be it? They mean the they don't mean schedule Q, they mean question Q. They mean question Q with identity. That's what this is to be all work reflected. This is the same issue we've had before. They need to identify wires, cables, anything being removed, and it should be listed, and they don't do that. So they agree on the two weeks of the things with they got bad. And the numbers are the same. Okay. Up to provide a certain uh certificate of completion. So if it became the noise report, does no I know we're not there. Does noise report have to be done on the block? No, because it's on this page. Sorry, continue. And this is for the facility on the roof. I'm not able to ascertain whether it says ATNT or singular somewhere here. So this is Francis, does it have the um zoning district? No. There are other pages that have it as a P Did you have the zoning district simply, sir? There's other pages in the zoning compliance form. It has it as a PD. Um, and I because I is complete. And this is where the question of the structural analysis and the dates of it. So the report by Gregory is dated the same day that stands, which is from November twenty five. It is the GT wireless engineering that is not a current report. We need a current report.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com