Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Council approves rezoning for 126 Romney Street amid neighbor opposition
Summary
Charleston City Council voted to approve three public‑hearing items, including a rezoning request for 126 Romney Street to allow commercial transitional uses and potential parking, despite neighborhood opposition and a Board of Appeals denial earlier the same day.
Charleston City Council on June 17 approved three public‑hearing items, including a rezoning request for 126 Romney Street that would allow commercial transitional uses and could permit surface parking to support redevelopment of a 10,000‑square‑foot building at King and Simmons streets.
The rezoning drew divided public comment. Supporters — including Tyler Smith, the property owner and applicant, and nearby business owners — said the change would help revitalize a long‑vacant corner building and provide needed parking. “We are trying our best to find a solution to be able to revitalize this building,” Smith told council. Opponents, largely Romney Street residents, said the proposal would create a commercial parking lot in the middle of a residential block and referenced zoning rules they said the application conflicts with.
Christopher Morgan, city staff, told council the Board of Appeals denied a use variance for the site earlier in the afternoon by a 5–1 vote and that the applicant later submitted an amended application changing the requested classification to commercial transitional. Morgan said the area already contains a mix of general business, limited business and residential zoning and that city comprehensive‑plan guidance did not preclude a commercial transition at the parcel.
Neighbors who spoke against the rezoning raised legal and quality‑of‑life concerns. Heidi Graham, a nearby resident, told council, “I just want you to realize that everyone wants 1091 renovated. But we're talking about 126 Romney Street, and we're talking about putting a commercial parking lot in the middle of a residential area.” Other residents urged the council to require a narrower, more restrictive allowance or to insist on alternatives to surface parking.
Councilman William J. Waring pressed for approval, arguing the property had been boarded up for years and that the owners had sought a narrowly tailored option. “Let's get this CT zoning passed today. Let's let them get their parking lot. Let's get this building on King Street renovated,” Waring said.
The motion to approve items 1 through 3 (the Romney rezoning and two annexation items listed on the public‑hearing agenda) passed; the record shows one abstention from Councilman Mitchell. Council did not record a roll‑call tally in the public transcript beyond noting the abstention.
The applicant and supporters said the parcel would be used to meet parking needs for the corner building at King and Simmons and that restrictions in the commercial transitional (CT) district — including limitations on outdoor dining and restricted hours of operation when adjacent to residences — would apply. Opponents said they would continue to press for more restrictive relief through board or legal channels where appropriate.
Council did not provide an ordinance number or additional conditions on the record beyond approving the items as presented; staff will post final zoning and annexation paperwork in the city’s records once processed. The Board of Appeals decision earlier that day remains part of the administrative record for the site and was cited during public comment.
