Greenville council denies text amendment sought after Camping World erected oversized American flag

Greenville City Council on March 13 voted 4-2 to deny a proposed amendment to the city’s sign ordinance that would have legalized a 3,200-square-foot U.S. flag and a tall flagpole at the Camping World property on Evan Street.

Council members who opposed the amendment said the company had broken city rules, acted in bad faith on permit paperwork and created a public-safety and community-standards problem by erecting the flag before obtaining the required approvals.

The denial follows months of vocal public comment and two Planning & Zoning votes: a unanimous P&Z recommendation to deny the original Camping World request and a subsequent motion from P&Z to recommend a more restrictive maximum size. Staff presented a compromise text amendment that limited the change to “official government flags,” required one flag per qualifying nonresidential parcel of at least five acres, added setbacks and required both building and zoning permits. The council ultimately rejected that compromise and left the existing ordinance in place.

Why it matters: Supporters of the denial said approving the change would reward a company that, in staff’s account, submitted misleading permit information, failed to pay most fines assessed for the violation and then used the flag to generate national attention. Opponents of denial said the flag is popular with many local residents and that continuing legal action would be costly and divisive for the city.

Key facts and council rationale - Staff said Camping World’s flag measured roughly 40 by 80 feet (3,200 sq. ft.) and the pole being discussed could be up to 130 feet under the draft amendment; the city’s existing code limited flags to 216 sq. ft. - Planning staff said the city had issued notices of violation and cited Camping World; the company paid an initial $650 but outstanding fines total about $8,900 as of the council discussion. - Council members who voted to deny pointed to safety (the uninspected, oversized installation near major roadways and residences), the inability to fly the flag at half-staff properly, and the need to uphold local ordinances rather than change them in response to intentional violations. - Council members who opposed denial said they did not want prolonged litigation or to spend city resources fighting a high-profile out-of-state corporation; they also noted many residents expressed support for the flag and urged the council to move on.

Process and next steps - If the council does not pursue further litigation the citations remain outstanding. City staff and the city attorney said legal remedies exist (including civil enforcement) and that council may discuss legal strategy in closed session. - If Camping World seeks compliance under the current ordinance, staff said the company would need to apply for a building permit and a zoning compliance permit, submit engineered foundation plans stamped by a licensed engineer and pass inspections before the city would issue a certificate of compliance.

Voices from the meeting - Council member Scully framed the vote as one about the rule of law: “We need to uphold our laws and demand that every citizen and business follow the law.” - Several speakers who opposed the amendment told council they viewed the flag as a marketing ploy and a deliberate attempt to force a policy change after erecting the structure. Mark Parker, a resident, said Camping World had “willfully disobeyed the ordinance.” - Residents who supported the flag told the council they liked the display and preferred to avoid long, costly litigation or further community division.

Context - Staff said the text amendment they brought back narrowed Camping World’s original broad request: the city proposal limited allowed flags to “official government flags” (U.S., state, recognized national flags and flags of political subdivisions), required a minimum parcel size (5 acres) and limited each qualifying property to one flagpole and one flag with specific setback and permitting requirements. Planning & Zoning had earlier proposed an even smaller maximum flag area. - City staff noted that even if the council approved an ordinance change, Camping World would still need to submit required engineering and go through permitting and inspection before the city would certify the installation.

What council decided - Motion to deny the staff proposal: passed 4-2. Council members voting to deny cited public-safety risk, false permit information, unpaid fines and the need to uphold code. Council members voting against denial cited the desire to avoid protracted litigation and the wishes of residents who support the flag.

Remaining uncertainties - Councilors asked staff and the city attorney to prepare legal options and cost estimates for possible enforcement or litigation; council suggested holding a closed session or workshop to discuss legal strategy further.

Sources: Greenville City Council meeting transcript and staff presentations.