Antenna Review Board deems two AT&T‑area applications incomplete, stops shot clock

The Antenna Review Board in the Town of Greenburgh on April 13 reviewed two wireless‑facility modification applications submitted on behalf of AT&T and found both filings incomplete, the board said, voting to stop the town's administrative "shot clock" until required corrections are filed.

The board's Chair led a line‑by‑line completeness review of the first application, for 313 Central Park Avenue, telling the applicant's representative, Steven Bosch of Atlantic Site Development, that the cover page used the wrong ZIP code and that "each person preparing the section for which they are responsible needs to" provide a signature attesting to the truth and completeness of their portion of the report. Bosch acknowledged the ZIP‑code error and said he would obtain the individual signatures.

Why it mattered: the board said the local code requires the names, addresses, qualifications and documented attestation of each technical contributor for noise and RF studies; absent those signatures the submission is incomplete and the town cannot rely on corporate or generic listings alone. The Chair instructed the applicant to provide a single, consolidated place on the application that lists every antenna, associated provider, and the make, model and manufacturer of each antenna.

The board also identified multiple technical and administrative gaps the applicant must close before review can proceed: a clear chain of title/affidavit of ownership showing how the easement was transferred (property owner → easement owner → Crown Castle → AT&T); a full description of "all work necessary" including removals and installations for cabinet brackets and trunk cables; a table itemizing frequency, modulation and service class for each antenna; and combined near‑field emissions charts showing total exposure at multiple distances (the board requested 10, 20, 30 and 50 feet and noted many near reports extend out to 500 feet).

Board concerns extended to rooftop exposure: the Chair pressed for simulated rooftop mapping (colorized spill maps or similar) in addition to ground‑level NEAR charts and the signage that provides employee/work‑area notices. The board said rooftop compliance cannot be left to a generic statement; it asked for the sign designs, placement and image, and the applicant agreed to provide examples and revised drawings.

Insurance and permit details were also flagged. The board required ACORD or similar certificates to list the Town of Greenburgh as an additional insured without qualifiers and asked that certificates use the town address (not White Plains) and list an attention line to the town attorney where appropriate. The board further asked that AT&T confirm it will submit annual RF certification "by January 31" each year and that the narrative state AT&T "will comply" with permit renewal requirements.

Motion and outcome: after the review the Chair moved to deem the 313 Central Park Avenue application incomplete. The board recorded the motion and adopted it; the motion's effect is to stop the administrative shot clock until the applicant submits the requested corrections and documentation.

Second application and shot‑clock dispute: the board then reviewed a second AT&T‑area application for 280 North Central Avenue and summarized prior submissions dating back to 2025. A significant point of debate centered on whether the board should mark the filing "conditionally complete" (allowing a finite window for outstanding items) or deem it incomplete and immediately stop the shot clock. Counsel for the applicant (Kim Nason, Phillips Lytle) indicated there may be ongoing correspondence and argued not all requested items were strictly required by the local code. The Chair and other board members pushed for a firm deadline to resolve outstanding rooftop exposure mapping and similar items. Ultimately the board voted to deem the 280 North Central Avenue submission incomplete and stop the clock; the board said it will reconvene to review the materials when resubmitted.

What the board required in writing: specific named contact information for AT&T on the application form; individual attestations/signatures and stated qualifications for each technical contributor; a full inventory of all antennas and other providers on the support structure with combined near‑field exposure calculations; a clear ownership/affidavit chain showing authority to attach equipment; day‑by‑day proposed construction schedules (consecutive workdays, weather permitting); images and dimensions of the permit sign and confirmation of lighting/no‑lighting changes; and corrected insurance certificates naming the town appropriately.

The board chair repeatedly emphasized safety and clarity: "All work necessary must be listed," the Chair said, and pressed the applicant to include removals as well as additions on the plans. Applicant representatives said they would provide revised plans, signatures and supporting documentation and asked for guidance from the building department on form presentation. The board said corrected filings should be returned within the window the board establishes and that it will not proceed until the documentation is complete.

Next steps: the town will provide stamped copies of the board's completeness findings. Once the applicant files the revised materials, the board will reconvene to determine whether the submissions meet the code's requirements and whether permits can be issued. The board adjourned after recording the two votes.