Breezy Hill concrete crushing facility

President of the Greater Calverton Civic Association read the association's written objection, arguing the proposal is an unlawful intensification of a nonconforming use and urging denial.

The adjacent property owner of 38 years disputed the applicant's account, blamed the applicant's own violations for the delays, and objected to a study that treated his home as a noise buffer.

A 20-year Calverton resident who walks the area daily said he's never heard crushing at the existing cement plants and warned the crusher would squeeze out long-time homeowners.

A former real estate broker said the area's character has turned residential, noted disclosure impacts on the adjacent home's saleability, and questioned truck routing.

A resident half a mile away cited existing truck traffic and ambient noise from the cement plants and questioned what the heavy-truck warning sign would say with 500 tons a day coming in.

Asked the board to make sure the environmental review distinguishes concrete from asphalt, since asphalt contains petroleum products and may be more toxic.

A Timber Point resident acknowledged 'they were here first' applies to the cement plant, but argued the area is now heavily residential and noted bald eagles near the site.

Submitted a lengthy written statement arguing the use is expressly prohibited in Light Industrial zoning, that the zone change followed the comprehensive plan, and that the applicant hasn't met the Chapter 105-8 criteria.

Cited a 120-decibel crusher noise level — like a jet taking off — and said it would destroy property values for miles.