Greenberg review board deems rooftop wireless application for 100 Clearbrook Road incomplete

The Town of Greenberg Review Board voted Feb. 18 to deem an application for rooftop wireless modifications at 100 Clearbrook Road incomplete, saying the submission contained inconsistent names, incorrect dates and missing technical documentation that must be corrected before a permit can proceed.

Emily, chair of the Review Board, moved to deem the application incomplete and listed a series of specific deficiencies reviewers found in the packet submitted on 02/11/2026 by a firm listed as "Aerosmith," which the application indicates is acting on behalf of AT&T. "All dates provided need to be checked and corrected," Emily said during the board's review, and she pressed the applicant to identify clearly who is the applicant, the operator and who owns the installation equipment.

The board highlighted several recurring problems across exhibits: inconsistent naming for the responsible party (references include "AT and T Mobility Corporation," "AT&T," "Cingular" and other variants), mismatched report dates (a noise study in the packet is dated 12/29/2025 while reviewer sign-offs show other dates), and different postal addresses listed in different places (the file alternately lists North Elmsford and Elmsford). The board instructed the applicant to standardize the address and parcel identifiers across all documents.

Reviewers also raised technical omissions that would block permit approval until fixed. The packet did not consistently state whether existing antennas would be removed or merely left in place and replaced, a distinction the board said must be explicit: "We need you to identify that you're going to actually remove them," Emily said, noting that failure to remove existing equipment can prevent issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The board also requested a structural analysis or PE letter confirming the roof and support structures can carry the proposed equipment and asked for any required certificate of completion for earlier antenna work on the building.

Equipment documentation was incomplete. The board asked the applicant to list existing and proposed antenna equipment separately (make, model and manufacturer) and to show a total antenna count. Reviewers counted nine antennas in the submission (six CommScope units and three Ericsson units) and asked the applicant to place a clear "total antennas" statement on the form.

Board members also queried site details such as backup power and safety measures. One reviewer flagged a sentence saying there were "no generators on-site" and asked the applicant to confirm whether that referred to both the roof equipment and the building itself. The board asked for clearer site diagrams showing center-line elevations and the precise location of each antenna and any required hazard signage or restricted-access areas.

The packet's monitoring and compliance language drew scrutiny. The board asked the applicant to replace awkward cut-and-paste language and to use the monitoring letter or the exact compliance text rather than informal phrasing; "by the mere fact that it's cut and paste makes me very concerned about what is accurate here," Emily said. At least one board member praised the packet's noise report as "the best noise report we have ever gotten," while noting that its date and address entries must be corrected.

Signage and immediate compliance issues were also raised. Reviewers said required on-site signage was missing from the building entrance and instructed the applicant to install the missing sign, document it on revised plans and provide a photograph showing the sign in place; board rules cited a maximum mounting height of 5 feet for such signs.

After completing its checklist, the board voted to stamp the application incomplete so the applicant could correct and resubmit. Emily moved to deem the application incomplete; the motion carried with members vocalizing assent. The clerk stamped the file and the board provided the applicant with the list of required corrections. The board adjourned at approximately 12:46 p.m.

Next steps: the applicant was asked to correct the inconsistent names and dates, clarify the applicant/operator/owner relationships, add or confirm structural and COC documentation, state explicitly which antennas will be removed and which will be installed, provide corrected drawings with center lines and heights (including T-Mobile/other carrier center lines), document on-site signage with a photo, and resubmit a corrected application for further review.