Greenburgh Antenna Review Board deems AT&T application incomplete over missing exhibits, inconsistent address

The Greenburgh Antenna Review Board voted unanimously Thursday to deem AT&T’s application to install antennas at 203 (listed in assessor records as 209) Chelsea Road incomplete, citing missing documentation, inconsistent address information and gaps in technical exhibits.

The board’s chair criticized the physical packet and content of the submission, saying files arrived “in this disarray” with pages unnumbered and exhibits misfiled. The chair warned, “If something comes in in this disarray again, it will be promptly sent back.” The representative for the applicant, Dan Dostaferri of Aerosmith Development (the agent for AT&T), apologized and said he would correct the presentation in future filings: “I apologize. I should've done a spell check on that.”

Why it matters: the board said the application lacked several items the town’s antenna code requires before it can be reviewed on the merits. Among the items the board flagged were a current, site-specific owner affidavit or authorization letter; clearly labeled Exhibit E (construction and structural drawings); a full structural analysis for the water tower as the support structure; a complete "all work necessary" description including cable removal and conduit work; an explicit make/model/manufacturer bill of materials for proposed antennas; modulation/class identification for each frequency band; and a NEAR monitoring plan stating that annual statements will verify radio-frequency emissions do not exceed applicable FCC rules.

Board members also raised several procedural and detail concerns. Reviewers could not locate identical exhibit sets across packets distributed to members, creating confusion about whether Exhibit E (drawings and the structural analysis) was present. The board requested that all submittals be paginated and that the antenna transmission-line bill of materials list make, model and manufacturer in distinct columns rather than relying on photos. A member summed up the requirement this way: “We have never accepted that because people must attest to what they provided.”

On technical compliance, the board told the applicant to provide a cumulative EME chart (cumulative exposure levels) measured at standard distances from the structure out to a typical 500-foot radius and to label the ground-level reference points used for those calculations. The board also asked that the NEAR monitoring plan include explicit language that the town will receive annual statements verifying compliance with applicable FCC regulations.

Scheduling and site details were questioned as well. The board asked for a clear, consecutive-day construction schedule (excepting weather delays), a description of any cabinet swaps and cabinet dimensions and color, a plan showing equipment placed beneath the water tank and gate location, and confirmation that no new lighting is proposed unless documented. Reviewers noted insurance exhibits were missing from some packets and reminded the applicant that the code requires a full set of copies (the board repeatedly cited the code’s requirement for multiple complete sets distributed to reviewers).

Formal action and next steps: the chair moved to deem the application incomplete for the reasons stated and the board voted unanimously in favor. The board’s decision pauses any review clock; the applicant may resubmit a corrected and fully assembled packet. The chair said the board will schedule a new review only after the town receives a corrected submission that includes the requested owner affidavit, complete structural analysis, NEAR language, properly labeled Exhibit E and the other details listed in the board’s notes. The building department will provide the applicant a written determination and explanation of missing items, the board said.

The meeting adjourned after the vote.