Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Antenna Review Board deems Crown Castle/T‑Mobile application complete after signage clarifications
Summary
At its Sept. 9 meeting in Greenburgh, the Antenna Review Board voted to deem complete a Crown Castle submission for T‑Mobile at 155 Highland Road after locating required address information in Exhibit 12 and requiring future applications to specify signage material and manufacturer.
The Antenna Review Board voted Sept. 9 to deem an application from Crown Castle on behalf of T‑Mobile for a proposed antenna site at 155 Highland Road "complete," after board members confirmed the required site address information and clarified how signage must be described in future filings.
At the start of the meeting the chair reviewed the application history, noting multiple prior submissions and meetings dating back to Dec. 2024. The board had repeatedly found portions of the application incomplete; at issue this session was item "f," the lack of an explicit address or site identification in the application packet. The chair directed the group to Exhibit 12, saying, "If you turn to Exhibit 12, the last page of the application... provides table A, and the site is highlighted in yellow," and concluded, "In my opinion, it is now complete." The board voiced no objections.
Board members also reviewed the drawings and sign details and resolved an outstanding item about the town sign posting. The chair and board liaison Francis Sheehan discussed the durability and material of the required notice. Sheehan noted the building department can require replacement when a sign is no longer readable; while Crown Castle's representative described the marking as a sticker or laminate with industrial‑grade adhesive. Sheehan said a permit can be conditioned so that "if the thing is no longer readable or no longer there, it has to be replaced," and the chair instructed that going forward applications must state what the sign will be made of and the manufacturer description so the board and building department can confirm durability.
After those clarifications, the chair moved to "deem this application complete." A board member seconded the motion and the board approved it by voice vote with no opposition recorded. The chair then provided stamped copies of the application packet to attendees. The board noted there are many more similar applications expected; the chair said the town will see roughly 17 additional filings in the coming period.
The meeting concluded after the board adjourned by voice vote. The board did not take any additional formal action on the permit at this meeting beyond finding the submission complete and recording the signage requirement for future applications.
