🏗️ Major Condo Project Denied — Walton County Planning Commission voted 4–3 to recommend denying the proposed 24-story Echelon condo project on Scenic 98.
🚗 Traffic & Tourism Concerns — Residents cited traffic delays, overcrowded beaches, and potential tourism decline as reasons for opposition.
🗳️ Advisory Vote Only — Despite the vote, final approval lies with the County Commission and a magistrate review process.
The Walton County Planning and Zoning Commission cast a 4-3 vote to deny a permit for a large condominium development in Miramar Beach.
But the close no vote doesn’t mean the fight is over.
One of the challenges facing South Walton, especially Scenic 98 in Miramar Beach is managing growth and, more specifically, how it can impact an already bustling and congested tourism destination. Last week, the Walton County Planning Commission met in Freeport to hear presentations from two potential developments that are sparking considerable concern and unrest among county residents.
The first development raising concerns for county residents is the proposed 24-story Echelon development. The significant development, submitted by Jenkins Engineering, is a central condominium high-rise that will contain 246 units. Located at 100 Seascape Drive, this megastructure will be placed amid several other vast complexes found in Miramar Beach. Although there are now height restrictions on construction in Walton County, this project had a “grandfather clause” that dates back over twenty-five years and therefore will not immediately prohibit (due to newer code height restrictions) the large structure from being built.
The consistent concern that citizens repeatedly expressed to the Planning Commissioners was that the current infrastructure is not designed to handle another large housing project. In the area of the proposed building location on Scenic 98 are two 24-story buildings (Ariel Dunes I and II), Surfside (15 stories), and Majestic Sun at 12 stories.
Cheryl Teel, a retired full-time resident, expressed her concerns, saying, “We can’t get out of our homes.” And addressing the commissioners, she added, “Drive down there. [to Miramar Beach on Scenic Gulf Drive.] Come visit us. See what it is like. See what it is like [on a] Tuesday. That is even a 40-minute wait. It is not good.”
Anna Golden, a resident of Majestic Sun, expressed similar concerns about traffic and overcrowding on Scenic 98, saying, “Already in the last seven days, the traffic has reached a level where we are waiting 40 minutes to get into our parking lot…So, I would submit that no one wants to wait 40 minutes to get into their home at night.”
Noel Labrie, another resident on Scenic 98, spoke about traffic and congestion, but she also talked about the negative effects that continued and increased overcrowding will have on tourism for Miramar Beach. She is both a homeowner and has rental properties in Miramar Beach. Speaking specifically about her rental property at Surfside, Labrie said, “I know I am facing a loss of income due to increased congestion and traffic. I know that my rental income has gone down because my renters have told me that our beaches, instead of being idyllic beaches, are becoming increasingly more crowded, and they [tourists and renters] are choosing to go other places…We are significantly impacting tourism by adding increased congestion, which means on the beaches, on the roads, and in the [rental] units. I own investments. [properties] I want people to stay there [on Scenic 98]. I am not saying that I don’t want our tourists to come. I do [want them to rent our existing properties.] I depend on their [tourists] income for my rentals as well, but I want it to be …a sustainable environment.”
Labrie also shared that she works in the local real estate market supporting a local broker. She reported that there is currently a flooded market of inventory for purchase, and she stated that there is currently “in excess of 13 months of condo inventory.” And she concluded by asking the commissioners a question: “So are we talking about [adding] another 246 units? [in addition to the current inventory available.]
Commissioner Fred Tricker addressed the representative for the Echelon developer regarding his concerns. Tricker said, “If I was [sic] the property owner, I would be very concerned about the things I have heard here tonight – about the problems of selling homes and problems of renting homes. And then you’re going to pile a ‘big ole’ 24-story condo right in the middle of all that? I would be very concerned about doing that. I don’t think it is in the public interest [especially] from a public safety point of view.”
The Chair, Kyla Jacobsen, affirmed that she was against adding the Echelon development and added that the economic impact with already so many vacant condominiums is “absolutely appalling.” She added that with limited public beaches and the crowding that exists on the beaches, people are not going to want to come here.
There was a discussion led by Commissioner Forest Buzan that implied that the Planning Commission lacked power when it comes to decisions that the Board of County Commissioners ultimately decides. He said, “A little clarification [referring to the motion and vote on the Echelon development], no matter what we [the Planning Commission] say, this is still coming up before the County Commissioners?” To which Ms. Jacobsen replied, “Correct, it will be heard at the next meeting. Buzan continued, “…So, whatever we say really doesn’t matter?”
The Chair responded with an affirmation that indicated that their [the Planning Commission] decision “is a recommendation.”
Stephen Schoen, Interim Planning Director for Planning and Development Services, informed the Planning Commission that a new process within the County requires a proposed project go before an appointed magistrate who hears testimony regarding proposed development issues that have encountered a “thumbs down” vote by the Planning Commission. The question arose regarding the next steps for the Echelon should the Planning Commission fail to support the proposed project. The magistrate would hear much of the same presentation provided to the Planning Commission, testimony by expert witnesses, and representation, and then provide a decision on the matter.
It is apparent that the Planning Commissioners, overall, were not happy with the voice they have as an ‘advisory’ commission. Planning Commissioner Buzan said, “I don’t understand how we can be in a position where we feel like we have to vote ‘yes’ on something that we think we should vote ‘no’ on.”
The motion was made to deny the Echelon development by Commissioner Buzan and Commissioner Tricker seconded the motion. The vote was made 4 to 3 in favor of denying the Echelon development.