The Greenville City Council voted 4–2 March 13 to deny a city staff–drafted amendment to the zoning ordinance that would have allowed a single, very large official government flag (up to 3,200 square feet on a flagpole up to 130 feet) in select nonresidential zoning districts with minimum lot sizes and zoning permits.

The zoning discussion grew out of a complaint and notice of violation the city issued last fall after Camping World installed a flag and flagpole that exceeded the city’s existing 216‑square‑foot limit. Staff said Camping World initially told city staff the pole and flag complied with limits, then said the flag was 3,200 square feet. Planning staff drafted an amendment that narrowed the applicant’s initial, broader request and added requirements including a minimum lot size (5 acres), one flag per parcel, setbacks and a zoning permit in addition to building permits.

Planning & Zoning had recommended denial (5–4) and suggested a smaller maximum flag size tied to federal flag guidance (760 square feet). The council heard more than a dozen public speakers during an extended public comment period. Opponents included veterans, nearby residents, and civic groups who said the pole and flag were erected in bad faith; supporters and others called the display patriotic and asked the city to legalize it to resolve the controversy.

Council debate touched on lawfulness, safety and inspection concerns, civic values and the expense of potential litigation. City staff said citations for zoning violations had accumulated to nearly $9,000 and that Camping World had paid an initial $650. Building‑code and engineering staff told council that if the amendment failed the company would remain in violation and that a permitted pole would require engineer‑stamped foundation plans and inspections; staff said the existing, erected flagpole had not yet been inspected.

After deliberation Council member Willis moved to deny the amendment; Council member Scully seconded. The motion to deny passed 4–2. The council discussed next steps and legal remedies; staff advised the council they could meet in closed session with city attorneys to review litigation options and costs. Council members asked staff to prepare additional legal and procedural information for a future meeting so that the council can decide how to proceed on enforcement and whether to pursue civil remedies to recover fines.