SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

By Eric Heinz

After what was described as an “inadvertent omission” of a standard permit clause, the city went back and looked at the agreement and voted to allow to include the 30-day period for the Outlets to agree or disagree with the conditions of the permits.

If the Outlets agree to the permits, which include a maximum of 17 tenant signs along the east and southeast-facing exterior walls, five hotel signs and four identification signs that will be halo backlit, then the process can move forward.
People spoke in favor of and against the motion in another effort to weigh in on the signs, but the permit amendment was the only action the City Council took at its April 17 meeting.

Officials said because the Outlets have had since March 6 to review the permit conditions, the additional 30 days should give them enough time to consider the city’s terms for the signs.

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAY
Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Staff

comments (0)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>