Greenville council denies ordinance change sought after Camping World erected oversized flag

Greenville City Council voted 6-0 on Jan. 9 to deny a proposed amendment to the city zoning code that would have allowed nonresidential properties to erect flagpoles as tall as 130 feet and to fly noncommercial flags up to 32,100 square feet.

Council members and dozens of speakers at a packed public hearing said the immediate dispute began after a Camping World store submitted a July building permit specifying a 70-foot pole and a 12-by-18-foot (216-square-foot) flag but later had a much larger flag and pole installed without a record of the required inspection.

The issue surfaced when Planning Division staff received a complaint in October and inspected the site; planning staff told the council the flag measured 40 by 80 feet (32,100 square feet) and the pole was taller than the permit allowed. Chris Kelly, city planner, told the council the applicant then submitted the text-amendment request on Nov. 15 asking to change city standards to accommodate the larger installation.

The proposed text amendment would have removed limits tied to individual zoning district height caps and allowed a blanket 130-foot height in all nonresidential districts and a 1,381% increase in the maximum allowed noncommercial flag size (from 216 to 32,100 square feet). Kelly said staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial; staff cited visual impacts, public safety concerns and the city's 2020 highway sign overlay approach, which already provided a narrowly tailored option for taller flags near divided highways.

Residents and nearby business owners who spoke at the hearing offered sharply different views. James Sposkey, general manager at the Camping World location, told the council the large flag had generated enthusiastic responses from customers and passersby. "The outpour of people that have come into this location and have thanked me for putting up the flag," he said, adding he did not initiate the corporate plan that led to the installation.

Opponents, including attorney Charles McLauchner and resident Mark Parker, urged denial. McLauchner said the company had used an application that matched the ordinance then erected a much larger flag and pole, calling it a "playbook" used in other cities. "The property owner filled out a permit'consistent with what the ordinance requires. But then the property owner proceeded to put up 32,100-square-foot flag," McLauchner said.

Council member Marianne Blackburn framed the decision as one about urban design and rule of law rather than patriotism. "Just because this applicant wishes to fly a USA flag doesn't mean that everyone has that intention," Blackburn said, warning the change would apply citywide if adopted. She moved to deny the amendment; Council member Matthew Scully seconded the motion. The council record shows the motion passed 6-0.

Council members and staff also discussed enforcement and next steps. Planning staff noted the building permit that was issued could be revoked because the work did not match permit documentation and inspections were not requested; the city's inspections and planning staff confirmed they had no record of an inspection request for the completed pole.

The council directed that civil penalties available under city code could be pursued and that staff work with legal counsel on next steps. Several council members said they were open to a future, site-specific request handled transparently through the code-change or variance processes but opposed a citywide rule change of the type proposed by the applicant.

The vote to deny was the final action on the item at the Jan. 9 meeting; the motion passed 6-0.

The item garnered extensive public attention and commentary during the hearing and afterward, and several council members said they wanted clearer procedures and better enforcement so future permit noncompliance could be identified and addressed earlier.