Greenberg panel deems three Crown Castle/T-Mobile antenna modification applications incomplete over documentation and RF concerns

The Town of Greenberg review panel on Oct. 24 reviewed three Crown Castle applications to modify utility-pole antennas to add or upgrade T Mobile equipment and unanimously deemed each application incomplete.

Panel Chair Catherine Letter of Lascaux led the hour‑long technical review and said the applications lacked several required items. "I make a motion that we determine this application for 548 Ardsley Road incomplete," she said before members voted unanimously to mark the first filing incomplete.

Why it matters: The board said the applications did not provide consistent, site‑specific engineering and permitting documentation the town needs to verify structural safety, radio‑frequency (RF) exposure calculations, and who is authorized to use or own equipment on each pole. Those elements affect whether the town may legally approve concealment designs, signage and post‑work inspections.

What the panel flagged

- Missing stamps and applicant identification: Reviewers repeatedly found at least one engineer’s stamp or signature missing in each submittal and said several application question fields were not answered in full. Chair Catherine Letter of Lascaux instructed the applicant to provide stamped engineering pages and a named applicant contact for each file.

- Pole ownership and drawings: Drawings labeled Con Edison or utility attachments without explicitly identifying the pole owner. The panel said drawings must state who owns each pole and where each antenna and cabinet are located, not only which company has equipment on it.

- RF reports not site‑specific: The board questioned RF maximum permissible exposure (MPE) tables in the submitted Waterford reports. Several sites with different antenna centerline heights reported the same maximum exposure (3.33% at 10 feet), which the Chair called unlikely. "These numbers are identical," the Chair said, adding the reports "need to be site specific." The panel asked for full tables showing where maximum and minimum values occur and for analyses that extend beyond 100 feet so the point at which exposure effectively falls to zero is clear.

- Co‑tenant/legalization concerns (Verizon): On the third application, town reviewers discovered Verizon equipment referenced in RF calculations even though the filing treated T Mobile as the only tenant. The Chair said Crown Castle must document any lease or authorization for Verizon equipment; otherwise Verizon may need to submit its own paperwork to legalize its presence in the equipment cabinet.

- Noise, signage and materials: The acoustic report’s wording (tense and conditional clauses about an undefined 'ions' configuration) required revision and the town name was misspelled in the report. The board also asked for explicit sign dimensions and materials and a clear statement on whether any additional lighting will be installed. The panel requested a color code (RAL) for concealment materials rather than photos.

Votes and next steps

For each of the three applications — 548 Ardsley Road, 3035 Spring Valley Road and 382 Ardsley Road (as listed in the filings) — the panel voted unanimously to deem the application incomplete and itemized the required corrections: stamped engineering pages, a clear site address in all exhibits, explicit pole‑owner identification, corrected site‑specific RF and noise analyses, signage and lighting details, and documentation of any co‑tenant arrangements (e.g., Verizon). Chair Letter of Lascaux said the building department will stamp the record and applicants should resubmit corrected applications; the panel expects scanned copies and any building‑department records about prior post‑work inspections.

Quotes

"I make a motion that we determine this application for 548 Ardsley Road incomplete," Chair Catherine Letter of Lascaux said as the panel moved to vote.

Crown Castle’s representative confirmed technical points during review and said the company would provide clarifications; the representative also stated that, for at least one site, "T Mobile is the only tenant." The panel asked Crown Castle to document whether Verizon equipment is present in any cabinet and to produce formal lease or authorization documents.

What to watch: The town will accept resubmitted applications with the requested clarifications. The panel said it will re‑review each corrected filing, and Verizon may be required to submit separate documentation if it is confirmed as a co‑tenant at any site.