Greenburgh antenna board deems three wireless facility applications incomplete

The Greenburgh Antenna Board reviewed three small‑wireless‑facility applications at a Dec. 15 meeting and voted to return each as incomplete, citing repeated documentation and technical deficiencies.

Chair Catherine Lehi led the board’s review of applications for 55 Jackson Avenue, 105 Poe Street and 644 Quartill Road. Lehi told applicants the board needed license numbers for listed engineers and clear credentials for other named professionals. "If you have difficulty getting the license number, let us know," Lehi said, instructing applicants to email the board if they cannot locate a particular credential.

Board members flagged a wider set of problems that recurred across all three submissions. Members said RF and noise reports submitted were generic or based on data from a factory location in New Jersey rather than measurements or modeling tied to the proposed site. Lehi said the code’s certification requires site‑specific information: "It says at the proposed site," she said, pressing for per‑site ambient noise levels, correct centerlines in drawings, and consistent addresses across all documents.

The board also pointed to internal inconsistencies in the applications: differing reported maximums in RF documents (4.5 vs. 3.33), a mismatched shroud height on sheet 4 (listed as 14 feet 9 inches in one place and 14 feet 8 inches in another), and an installation schedule that listed June 9, 2025 — a date already past the meeting. The chair asked applicants to correct typographical errors and to make site data uniform across exhibits.

Applicants or their representatives disputed some procedural points during the review. One participant said the board had previously accepted a "generic report" in September; the board disagreed, with Lehi responding that she has not accepted such reports in her tenure. The exchange underscored that the board expects site‑specific RF/noise measurements or modeling attested by properly identified signatories.

Members also asked for clearer certification language and explicit ownership definitions. Lehi asked that the language change from an "affirmative obligation" to naming the responsible entities directly — for example, specifying that Crown Castle and the carriers (T‑Mobile and Verizon) "will take the steps necessary to correct" any interference or defects.

After the review, the board voted on motions to deem each application incomplete. For 55 Jackson Avenue the chair moved to find the application incomplete; the board recorded a second and voted in favor, which the chair described as unanimous. The board repeated the same outcome for 105 Poe Street and 644 Quartill Road.

Lehi said the building department will issue an annotated copy of the review the following morning and that applicants must return corrected materials, including: site‑specific RF/noise reports or measurements; consistent, correct addresses on all drawings and documents; explicit documentation showing any additional wireless providers to be served (signed agreements or clear documentation); properly identified signatories and credentials; and corrected technical drawings that align with RF reports. The board adjourned following the motions.