Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Antenna Application Completeness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenburgh board finds AT&T/Aerosmith application for Hartsdale site incomplete, requests technical fixes
Summary
The Town of Greenburgh Antenna Review Board reviewed an application for 280 North Central Avenue in Hartsdale and voted to deem it incomplete after identifying missing or inconsistent RF charts, an unclear monitoring plan, incomplete drawings and signage, and attestation gaps. The applicant agreed to revise and resubmit.
The Town of Greenburgh Antenna Review Board on Nov. 18 reviewed an application for wireless facility upgrades at 280 North Central Avenue in Hartsdale and voted to deem the filing incomplete, the board chair said.
The chair told the applicant the submission lacked critical technical and documentary elements the board requires. The board asked for a combined RF output chart showing the summed maximum permissible exposure (MPE) from all providers on the site, centerline elevations that match the construction drawings and NEAR/EME report, and clearer pagination or Bates numbering for lengthy exhibits.
The board also asked the applicant to separate responses to distinct application questions: the monitoring plan (section 3) must stand alone and state the annual reporting schedule (the application should specify submissions due Jan. 31), while a separate noninterference statement may accompany the monitoring plan. The chair said the monitoring plan must “provide annual statements to the town verifying that the radio frequency emissions do not exceed the applicable FCC regulations.”
Board members raised concerns about the noise assessment in Exhibit C, noting its language implied the report evaluated only AT&T equipment rather than the site as a whole. The presenter agreed to revise wording so the report clearly evaluates all equipment at the site and to remove the ambiguous phrase “regular capacity.”
The board pressed the applicant for a detailed, sequential work schedule tied to the property owner’s dunnage installation and for an explicit description of what will be removed, relocated and newly installed during each week of work. The applicant confirmed antennas will be removed from their current locations and reinstalled on new dunnage once the property owner’s dunnage work is complete, and that the planned build-out will take roughly two weeks.
The board also required that drawings include elevation above grade and elevation above sea level, identify the owner and operator of each antenna and appurtenant structure, list materials and colors, and show signage. The code requires a single stainless‑steel or aluminum plate sign with the permit number, date of issuance and an emergency contact; the applicant said the permit number is not yet available but will be added once the permit is issued.
The chair objected to a blanket attestation by non‑specialists and asked that each signatory specify which sections they are attesting to (for example, construction drawings, RF report and noise study). The applicant indicated engineers’ names and license numbers will be added and that signatories would be matched to the technical sections they prepared.
After discussing the list of incompletions, the chair made a motion to deem the application incomplete; the motion was seconded and carried. The board said it will have the building department stamp the determination and email the decision to the applicant.
The board emphasized it had accommodated prior resubmissions but will require applicants to meet documentation standards going forward. The meeting adjourned following the vote.
