York County addresses ‘rumors, accusations’ over controversial $150M Silfab Solar site
York County Council asked for a review of the controversial Silfab Solar project amid rumors, speculation and continued questions from residents.
The county issued a statement Friday, attributed to Council Chairwoman Christi Cox, about the $150 million, 800-job solar panel manufacturing project.
It aims to address “many rumors, accusations and speculation being circulated” in the community after the Canadian solar panel manufacturer sparked public outcry with plans to set up shop on Logistics Lane in Fort Mill. The county statement was written to “address and clarify” public concerns on whether Silfab would pay taxes and the county’s role in permitting the project.
The statement noted that county staff is working to “gather information and research pertinent legal issues” related to the Silfab project as part of a comprehensive review that staff will provide to council.
The statement didn’t say when council would get the review. There’s nothing related to Silfab on the council’s agenda Monday, unless it’s part of legal advice received during executive session. After Monday, council next meets June 11.
Silfab Solar controversy in Fort Mill
Last year, the county approved an incentives agreement with Silfab that allowed the company to pay a fee based on a 4% tax rate. That’s less than half the rate of an industrial property without an incentives agreement.
To get the incentives, the company committed to a $150 million investment set to create 800 jobs.
Neighbors of 7149 Logistics Lane protested almost immediately, with concerns the company could use toxic chemicals on the property next to where the Fort Mill School District is building new middle and elementary schools. The company contends it doesn’t produce toxic waste.
Hundreds of residents turned out when the county Board of Zoning Appeals took up one neighbor’s protest May 9.
The zoning appeals board sided with protesters, agreeing that solar panel manufacturing isn’t explicitly stated in the county land use code and shouldn’t be allowed in light industrial districts like the one on Logistics Lane.
More questions arose when Silfab had a permit approved May 14 by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control for the site after the zoning appeals board rendered its decision.
That permit was for parking lot and utility work for the building, unrelated to whether Silfab should be allowed to make solar panels there. The county reviewed and signed off on that permit before the zoning appeals board decision.
What happens next for Silfab
Silfab hasn’t said much about its plans in recent weeks, but did issue a statement after the zoning appeals board decision that it would review public forum comments and await an official letter from the board.
“This was not a final determination, and we are exploring the various options that will lead to a resolution,” its statement said.
An automatic 30-day appeal process for the zoning appeals board decision runs through June 29. According to the county statement Friday, the property was zoned for light industrial use in 1992 and there’s no pending zoning request to change it.
In addition to appealing the zoning appeals board decision, options for Silfab to continue with the Logistics Lane site could involve rezoning the property to heavy industrial use or seeking a special exception to operate there.
Rezoning would be a York County Council decision, after county planning staff and planning commission review it. That would involve multiple public hearings. A special exception would go back to the zoning appeals board, and would mean one more public hearing.
In Friday’s statement, the county asked residents with questions or comments on the Silfab case to email them to silfabinfo@yorkcountygov.com.
An online group called Stop Silfab Solar has a rally planned Sunday afternoon on a neighboring property to the Silfab site. It belongs to Wally Buchanan, the long-time resident whose protest to the zoning appeals board led to the May 9 decision.
