Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Union County staff recommends approval to rezone 10.84-acre Mallister parcel to light industrial

Union County Board of Commissioners · April 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County planning staff recommended approval of a straight rezoning request for a 10.84-acre parcel on Pageland/US 601 to return it to light industrial zoning; the applicant, Tommy Mallister Jr., said he sought to remove a retail special use and match surrounding zoning.

Senior planner John Wear told the board that the RZ-2026-004 petition would rezone a 10.84‑acre parcel on Pageland Highway from a highway‑corridor conditional district back to Light Industrial, restoring a prior zoning pattern and aligning the parcel with adjacent light‑industrial property. Wear said staff finds the request consistent with the Union County 2050 comprehensive plan’s employment‑corridor designation, but noted a lack of utilities on the site may limit certain uses.

Applicant Tommy Mallister Jr. spoke briefly at the lectern and said he had discussed the matter with planning staff and did not intend retail uses on the parcel: “I didn't want the retail component there anymore ... I think it needs to go back to light industrial.”

Wear explained the parcel had been rezoned in 2016 with conditions and had hosted office and contractor equipment storage; a telecommunications tower had been removed in recent years. The staff report identified both potential negatives (some allowed light‑industrial uses could increase traffic near existing residences) and positives (site size, adjacency to existing light industrial, direct US‑601 access and consistency with the land‑use map); staff recommended approval and the planning board had recommended approval on a 7–0 vote.

No members of the public signed up to speak at the hearing and the board closed the public hearing after brief commissioner questions. The board did not take a final vote on the rezoning at this meeting; the public‑hearing record will be used for a subsequent decision on the petition.