Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board deems 313 Central Ave. wireless filing incomplete amid easement, affidavit and noise‑profile questions
Summary
The Greenburgh Antenna Review Board found the 313 Central Ave. filing incomplete, asking applicants to clarify easement ownership (AP Wireless Investments vs. property owner), correct affidavits, reconcile antenna centerlines and provide a noise profile or calculations.
The Town of Greenburgh Antenna Review Board on Feb. 5 reviewed an application for 313 Central Avenue and voted to deem that filing incomplete after identifying ambiguities in easement ownership, affidavit wording, antenna centerlines and the noise documentation.
Reviewers asked the applicant to clarify ownership and leasing relationships recorded in the lease and easement documents. Board discussion showed AP Wireless Investments holds an easement on the property for the tower ground, while the recorded property owner (referred to in documents as Colina/Kalina/Colina Properties) appears separately; the board asked for explicit documentation showing both the property owner and the easement owner and how the lessee/lessor relationships apply to the proposed work.
The board also flagged a problematic affidavit: a notarized declaration was dated and signed in a way that suggested the signatory had not signed on behalf of the Hartsdale Fire District; the board asked for a corrected affidavit indicating the proper authority and relationship to the fire district.
Members identified discrepancies between antenna centerlines listed in RF reports and the plan drawings (for example, T‑Mobile centerline noted at 88 on the plans but 86 in the RF report and AT&T centerlines listed at 71 vs. 75 in plans). The board requested reconciliation of those numbers or corrected plan/RFEME inputs so the town can accurately assess RF exposure and siting heights.
On noise, board members pressed for either a measured noise profile at the site or engineer calculations that include existing equipment plus proposed equipment to demonstrate compliance with the town code's dBA limits. Some engineers argued that because no ground equipment is being added that would generate noise, a calculation suffices; the board asked for a method and supporting documentation.
After listing the missing items — corrected address on drawings, contact update for the fire department, corrected affidavit, easement/ownership clarification, reconciled centerlines, explicit cable removal/retention language, detailed concealment photos and noise profile or calculations — the board voted to deem the application incomplete and requested a resubmission addressing each comment.
The board directed staff to require the corrected affidavit and the easement documentation before the application can proceed to completeness approval.
