Greenburgh review board finds AT&T modification application incomplete, lists technical and documentation fixes

The Berg Antenna Review Board voted March 16 to deem AT&T’s application to modify equipment at 301–305 Old Marytown Road incomplete and directed the company to resubmit with specific technical, zoning and administrative corrections.

Board members said the filing — the latest of several submissions dating to 2020 and revised most recently on March 13, 2026 — lacked several required items that prevent full review and permit issuance. The board chair summarized the core deficiencies and instructed staff to return the package to the applicant once those items are corrected.

Why it matters: the item affects a site adjacent to residences and the board must verify noise and radio‑frequency (RF) emissions, concealment and public‑safety signage before authorizing changes to the support structure and antenna equipment.

Key findings and required corrections

The board identified two types of problems: missing documentary confirmations and technical calculations. On the documentation side, members said the affidavit (section F) names an entity but does not identify a person authorized to swear the affidavit; a Committee member told the applicant, “You can't swear a company. You can swear a person.” The board also asked the applicant to correct the certificate of insurance to list the Town of Greenburgh and to include the subject property address and a description of operations in the additional‑insured box.

On technical items, the board said the near‑field (RF) report does not show a cumulative "worst‑case" table aggregating emissions from all providers on site (AT&T and other carriers). The chair said the applicant must supply “a chart that shows us the worst case scenario when all the antennas on the site are added together” and show distances at which thresholds are reached. The board also asked the company to identify frequency, modulation and class using the town’s requested labels (section L) and to remove the descriptive word "future" from drawings that list other providers’ antennas so measurements and calculations include any antennas that will be present.

Zoning and noise report discrepancy

Members flagged an inconsistency between the application (which lists an OB zoning district) and the noise report (which calls the site residential). Staff was directed to confirm the official zoning map and the board requested the applicant correct the noise report or the application answers depending on that confirmation. The board emphasized that, if the site is OB, the noise‑code analysis must be adjusted accordingly.

Installation schedule, concealment and drawings

The board found the proposed installation schedule (section Q) insufficiently specific. The chair asked for a sequential, back‑to‑back schedule of work days ("days will be sequential, weather permitting") rather than an approximate duration. The board also required a narrative and drawings documenting that antennas will remain concealed inside the existing pole, that active equipment will be in the basement and that no exterior changes will alter the concealment elements.

Signage, color, lighting and other details

Signage must include the provider permit number, permit date and an emergency phone number and be no higher than 5 feet; locations should include the base of the pole and the basement entry. The board asked the applicant to state color and material on drawings or in notes, and to confirm there will be no additional exterior lighting.

Board action and next step

After discussion the chair moved to find the application incomplete; a committee member seconded the motion and the board voted in favor. The motion directs staff to return a stamped checklist to the applicant for correction and resubmission. No permit was issued at the meeting.

Quote highlights

Committee member on the affidavit: "You can't swear a company. You can swear a person." Chair on RF reporting: "We need a chart that shows us the worst case scenario when all the antennas on the site are added together, and note what it and the [report] should have shown you." Committee member on legal pushback: "AT&T's attorney stance is the noise is not required per 64 0 9 litigation...everything is a fight for costs."

What comes next

Staff will verify the official zoning classification from the town zoning map and return the checklist and stamped review comments to the applicant. The applicant must correct the affidavit, update technical tables (RF cumulative chart, frequency/modulation/class), revise drawings and address administrative items (insurance address, signage, color/material statements) before the board can complete review and consider a permit.