Greenburgh antenna review board deems three right‑of‑way applications incomplete over missing documentation

The Town of Greenburgh Antenna Review Board on Dec. 12, 2025, voted unanimously to deem three applications for right‑of‑way wireless modifications incomplete, citing inconsistent addresses, missing documentation and non‑site‑specific technical reports. The board reviewed applications for installations listed as 55 Jackson Avenue, 644 Fort Hill Road and 105 Poe Street and found the submissions did not meet multiple town code requirements.

The board chair led the review and repeatedly flagged missing professional identification and contact information. “They do not provide names, addresses and qualifications of persons preparing the report,” the chair said while reading the application responses, and added that a professional license number or stamp must be supplied for the senior mechanical engineer and explicit credentials for the engineering manager. The chair also told members the submissions sometimes listed only corporate entities and generic phone numbers without a named contact for the applicant, which she said makes communication and follow‑up impractical.

Why it matters: The board said these details are material to the town’s review of public‑right‑of‑way installations because the information affects safety, permit accuracy and the town’s ability to monitor compliance if sites are installed. Multiple members also raised concerns that the applicants used generic, multi‑site reports instead of site‑specific RF and noise measurements — a practice the board said is not acceptable for installations in residential neighborhoods.

Specific deficiencies the board recorded included conflicting address and ZIP code entries (the application sometimes named places as Greenberg or Scarsdale while town records and the board referenced Greenburgh/Hastings on Hudson), mismatched permit and insurance documentation (examples included a street opening permit that listed 179 Jackson while drawings referenced 55 Jackson), missing exhibits referenced in the application (the board said Exhibit 13 was cited but absent), and contradictory technical figures (the shroud/antenna height was listed as both 14 feet 8 inches and 14 feet 9 inches in different pages of the file).

Several members also pointed out that noise testing and ambient measurements had been done “in a factory in New Jersey” rather than at the proposed installation locations. “They are taking ambient noise…from the street where the factory is located,” a committee member said, and the board concluded that off‑site factory measurements cannot substitute for on‑site readings in a residential setting.

Ownership and collocation were an additional concern. The board found the filings did not consistently identify pole ownership, operator and tenant equipment: drawings at times referenced Crown Castle, at other times T‑Mobile, and the board said Verizon — which has existing equipment at some of the locations — was not always noted in the work descriptions. The chair instructed that plans must identify owners, operators and any collocated providers on every relevant drawing.

Formal action and next steps: The chair moved to deem each application incomplete; the motions were seconded and the board voted unanimously to mark all three submissions incomplete. The board’s votes and notations were initialed, stamped with the meeting date (12/12/2025) and left with the building department; the board indicated the stamped copies will be sent to the absent applicants for correction and resubmission. The liaison agreed to initial and scan the stamped materials for distribution.

The board did not take further procedural action on the installations and did not approve any work. Members repeatedly noted that had an applicant representative been present, many questions could have been clarified on the spot and some issues might have been resolved more quickly. The meeting concluded after the administrative steps to stamp and distribute the board’s comments.

Votes at a glance: The board voted to deem the three applications incomplete: 55 Jackson Avenue — deemed incomplete (motion passed unanimously); 644 Fort Hill Road — deemed incomplete (motion passed unanimously); 105 Poe Street — deemed incomplete (motion passed unanimously). Stamped copies of the board’s comments were left with the building department and will be provided to the applicants for resubmission.

The board’s action requires applicants to submit corrected materials that: provide site‑specific RF and noise testing; list named contacts and valid license/stamp information for engineers; reconcile addresses, permit and insurance entries; identify all pole ownership and collocated providers (including Verizon where applicable); include any missing exhibits cited in submissions; and explicitly describe any proposed new pole or anchors. The board will consider amended submissions after those materials are provided and applicants are present to answer questions.