Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenville council authorizes legal action to enforce zoning against Camping World
Summary
The Greenville City Council voted 4-2 to authorize the city to file a civil action to remedy an alleged zoning violation at the Camping World property and to retain outside counsel to pursue compliance.
The Greenville City Council on March 24 voted to authorize the city to file a civil action against Camping World Property Inc. to compel compliance with local zoning rules and to retain outside legal counsel to pursue remedies.
City staff said the resolution responds to continuing noncompliance by the property after earlier efforts, including a city-initiated text amendment, failed to resolve the issue. City Attorney Mr. McGirt told council the resolution authorizes the city manager, city attorney or retained counsel "to pursue and take all actions to compel compliance."
Council discussion centered on legal cost and policy priorities. Councilmember Robinson opposed the resolution and framed his objection around the property's flag display, saying, "I will not vote for this motion at all. I support 100 the US flag, and I will never be a party to a lawsuit that wants to take it down." He said litigation of this matter was not the council's best use of taxpayer funds. Other council members said enforcing zoning on privately owned property when the city has the authority is necessary to uphold local ordinances.
Motion and vote: Councilmember Scully moved to approve the resolution; Councilmember Willis seconded. The motion passed 4-2. The meeting record lists the final tally as yes 4, no 2. Councilmember Robinson announced he would vote no; the transcript does not record the names of all individual yes/no votes beyond that.
The resolution directs city staff to retain outside counsel if needed and to take action to bring the property into compliance. The council had discussed related options at its March 13 meeting and denied a city-initiated text amendment intended to create a compliance pathway for the property's oversized flag prior to returning with options on March 24.
The council did not specify a timeline for filing suit or an upper limit on legal fees in the meeting discussion. The resolution itself, as read into the record, empowers staff to proceed but does not list a dollar authorization in open session.
Provenance: The resolution and council debate appear in the meeting transcript beginning with the city attorney's presentation on the resolution and spanning subsequent council comments and the recorded vote.
