Residents, local groups urge Port Canaveral Authority to halt sale for proposed Merritt Island LNG site; board orders workshop

Dozens of residents testified at the Port Canaveral Authority meeting on Feb. 26 urging commissioners to reject an unsolicited proposal to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) liquefaction and storage facility on Merritt Island, citing health, safety, noise, wildlife and evacuation concerns. The board voted unanimously to hold a workshop within 30 days and asked staff to prepare a written strategic analysis of the property before advancing any sale.

The public-comment period ran more than an hour as speakers from Island Crossings, Riverwalk and other neighborhoods described the proposed site as too close to homes and schools. "This is suicide to allow this kind of facility to be located so close to people's homes," said Diana Glens, a resident of Island Crossings, who read reports and listed health conditions she said are associated with living near LNG facilities. Several speakers cited a distance of roughly 350 feet from nearby homes and said that proximity left no effective buffer for potential accidents.

Speakers raised technical and land-use objections. Nancy Dix said an environmental-impact document she reviewed listed the closest resident at 0.8 miles, not the 350 feet that would apply here, and argued the site appears to conflict with Brevard County Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.5, which she said prohibits heavy process industrial development along the barge canal. "This is heavy industrial development along the barge canal," Dix said. Residents also flagged an active bald-eagle nest and asked whether state and federal wildlife rules would allow the project so close to protected habitat.

Some commenters questioned the project's purpose and logistics for space-industry fueling. Heidi Eflint said she asked company representatives how many tanker trucks are required to fill a rocket and received no clear answers; she told commissioners a single rocket could require 150–200 tanker trucks and worried about road and traffic impacts. Captain Alex Gurichke, representing local mariners, criticized the developers’ community meeting as disorganized and asked the board to schedule an evening meeting that residents could attend.

Victoria Price, appearing for Chesapeake Utilities, thanked the board for continuing the conversation and said the company seeks to begin the regulatory and environmental review process; she asked for more opportunities to "educate" and meet with residents and local leaders. Several residents, however, said company representatives at their open house were unwilling or unable to answer technical questions on noise, stormwater, vibration studies, tank sizes and evacuation planning.

After public comments, commissioners discussed options including a public workshop to examine LNG operations, public-safety questions, property strategic value and alternative sites. Commissioner (speaker 35) moved to hold a workshop and direct staff to prepare a strategic-value analysis and materials to inform commissioners and the public; the motion was seconded and passed 4-0. Board members clarified the workshop will be a staff-led, noticed meeting (the public may observe but would not have a comment period at that workshop), and said county zoning and permitting will also be a necessary step if any proposal proceeds.

The board did not vote to sell or lease the parcel at the meeting. Next procedural steps: a staff-produced strategic analysis, an invited presentation from port staff and options to invite county representatives and the proposal's proponents to the workshop. The commission specified a 30-day window for scheduling and asked staff to organize an accessible time.

The vote to hold the workshop was 4–0. The board said it will accept public observation at the workshop and will provide notice of the meeting date and agenda in advance.