Split Zoning and 657 King Street

March 17, 2026 UPDATE:

‍The City of Charleston Board of Zoning Appeals–Zoning (BZA‑Z) held a special meeting on Tuesday, March 10 where they unanimously upheld the Zoning Administrator’s October 17, 2025 determination that the height district boundary at 657 King Street is not ambiguous and must be applied to 657 King Street as mapped. The Board's decision confirms that the property is subject to the city’s split-zoning regulations, which limit building height to four stories along King Street, while allowing greater height only deeper within the parcel. This argument, detailed in our June 2025 blog below, emphasizes that the split zoning at 657 King Street is intentional to protect the historic scale along King Street.

HCF was represented before the Board by Brian Hellman of Hellman Yates, who argued that the zoning boundary is clear and enforceable. The evidence before the Board demonstrated that the city’s GIS zoning map contains fixed geographic coordinates identifying the exact location of the Old City Height District boundaries, leaving no uncertainty regarding where the four-story and six-story districts apply.

As a result of the Board’s decision:

·         The applicant cannot move forward with designs that apply a five-story and six-story height across the full parcel.

·         Any future proposal must respect the four-story height limit along the King Street frontage.

·         Additional height may occur only within the portion of the property located in the taller height district, consistent with Charleston’s split-zoning ordinance.

The decision reinforces the important principle that when zoning boundaries are clear, the city must apply them consistently to preserve the historic character and human scale of Charleston’s most significant corridors, including King Street and Meeting Street.

Historic Charleston Foundation remains vigilant to ensure that new development aligns with Charleston’s historic context, zoning requirements, and community expectations. In doing so, we continue working to protect the quality of life in our beloved city.

‍JUNE 16, 2025 ORIGINAL BLOG POST: 

On May 14, 2025, a project for a new five-story hotel with a sixth story penthouse at 657 King Street was presented to the Board of Architectural Review-Large (BAR-L) for conceptual approval.

HCF opposed the project because the parcel in question contains split zoning (Height District 4 along King Street and 6 stories on the interior of the lot). This split zoning is intentional to require buildings to have a more appropriate scale along King Street but then allow for an increase in height on the interior. See image below pulled from the city’s zoning map – the dotted black line marking the two height zones is very clear, and this condition runs along both King and Meeting Streets on this part of the peninsula.

In the image above, the blue outline is 657 King. The black dotted line is the height district boundary.

BAR-L is not tasked with zoning decisions. If there had been a question about how to interpret the zoning, this project should have been referred to the BZA for zoning review before it arrived at BAR. BAR staff requested a legal opinion to help guide their decision, and city legal staff referred BAR staff to this ordinance:

Sec. 54-103. Rules for determining zoning district boundaries.

Where uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of any of the aforesaid districts as shown on the zoning map, the following rules shall apply:

a. Unless otherwise indicated, the district boundaries follow land lot lines; center lines of streets, highways, alleys or railroads; center lines of water courses or impoundments of streams, reservoirs, or other bodies of water.

b. Where so indicated, district boundaries are parallel to the center lines of streets, highways or railroads, or rights-of-way of same, or the center lines of streams, reservoirs, or other bodies of water, or said lines extended at such distance there from as indicated on the zoning map. If no distance is given, such distance shall be determined by the use of the scale shown on said zoning map.

c. Where a district boundary line on the zoning map divides a lot of record, the district requirements for the least restricted portion of such lot shall be deemed to apply to the whole thereof; provided that such extensions shall not include any part of such a lot more than 50 feet beyond the district boundary line.

d. In all disputes involving the interpretation of zone district boundaries, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be the final judge.

(Ord. No. 1999-54, § 4, 4-27-99)

Note that conditions (a)-(d) are predicated on the condition of “uncertainty.” Uncertainty typically means that boundaries were not surveyed in modern times or that zoning does not follow lot lines along the border of the parcel because it predates more detailed GIS dimensions. These are exceptional cases. Split zoning is not exceptional. 657 King Street is not an exception.

There is no uncertainty as to the boundaries of the height districts.

According to BAR staff, the city’s legal department advised them to refer to section (c) for guidelines on how to treat 657 King Street, thereby allowing the least restrictive portion of the lot (i.e. 6 stories) to control the height for the entire parcel.

Again, the city’s advice was based on the assumption that uncertainty existed. We, and other legal minds, believe that no uncertainty exists in this case.

This case is important because split zoning is a common practice that allows developments to be context sensitive while creating some density. If split zoning now somehow means that the least restrictive portion controls across the entire parcel, this interpretation could be devastating for King Street, Meeting Street, and beyond.

Split zoning is an indispensable tool to ensure that new development is compatible with the historic fabric and public right-of-way along critical streets in Charleston. The decision to disregard the split zoning at 657 King Street creates a dangerous precedent that could lead to eight-story new construction along King and Meeting Streets.

HCF is holding the line on the city’s height districts.

On June 13, 2025, Historic Charleston Foundation (HCF), represented by Brian Hellman of Hellman Yates, filed an appeal in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court challenging the City of Charleston Board of Architectural Review’s (BAR) May 14, 2025 approval of the conceptual design for a new five‑ and six‑story hotel at 657 King Street.

At the heart of HCF’s appeal is a clear and fundamental principle: Charleston’s split-zoning boundaries are unambiguous, enforceable, and essential to preserving the historic scale of King Street.

The BAR’s approval permitted six stories on a portion of the property that is explicitly zoned for a maximum of four stories. The height district boundary at 657 King Street is not vague, subjective, or open to interpretation—it is mapped with precision using fixed geographic coordinates found on the City’s GIS zoning map and must be applied as such. These coordinates clearly show the division between the four‑story height district along King Street and the taller height allowance only deeper within the parcel.

This is not merely a technical mapping issue; it is a carefully crafted planning tool. The split zoning at 657 King Street was intentionally created nearly a decade ago to protect the historic pedestrian‑scale character of King Street, while still allowing additional height farther from the corridor.

HCF contends that the BAR’s erroneous interpretation of the ordinance at the May meeting would not only allow for two extra stories on portions of the property at 657 King Street along the street, but it would also set a dangerous precedent for many other split-zoned properties in the immediate vicinity.  

“There was a lengthy analysis and planning process almost ten years ago that led to the creation of split zoning to maintain Charleston’s historic character,” says Winslow Hastie, Historic Charleston Foundation’s President & CEO, “and the BAR’s action on 657 King Street essentially flies in the face of the height ordinance that codified that work.”

Historic Charleston Foundation will continue to share updates on this issue via our website and social media channels.