Residents urge village to revisit Cumberland Park cell tower plan, citing safety and coverage gaps

Several Roselle residents used the Aug. 11 public comment period to urge the Village Board to revisit a proposed cell tower near Cumberland/Kemmerling Park, telling trustees they regularly experience little or no cellular service from inside their homes and that better coverage is a public-safety issue. Roberta Barrino, who said she lives at 205 E. Walnut, told the board that she has “1 bar on my phone, 2 if I put my cell phone on Wi Fi” and asked the village to “do what is procedurally necessary to have the proposed cell tower at Cumberland Park readdressed by planning and zoning.” She said the tower would improve 911 services because poor service can prevent accurate location delivery to emergency dispatch when calls are not made over Wi‑Fi. Other residents described long-standing dead zones in the neighborhood. Siri Hansen said she has “had really bad coverage” for 25 years and that drop calls and unintelligible sound are disrupting business and daily communications. Mark Sukowitz, a Seam Circle resident, said he has had little coverage “before cell phones existed” and still has very little now. Barrino told trustees the public‑works report to planning and zoning said the tower met needed criteria and that Verizon approached the Park District about locating a tower on district property. She added that the village previously missed rental revenue opportunities when earlier sitings were not approved: “This is also the exact same area that T Mobile identified way back in 02/2006… The fact that this opportunity would have brought in 15,000 per month to the Park District over an extended period of time back then versus the 2,000, which is now the average per month rental, is wasted opportunity.” Mayor Pawlowski said the board would not be taking action on the cell-tower at that meeting and that planning and zoning had considered it; staff would continue reviewing the information to determine next steps. No formal action was taken by the board at the Aug. 11 meeting; the matter remains with planning and zoning and under staff review.