2 lawsuits over Silfab solar panel plant plans in Fort Mill could determine what’s next
The $150 million Silfab Solar project in Fort Mill has been playing out in the court of public opinion for most of the year. But whether the company ultimately builds solar panels at 1749 Logistics Lane will come down to actual court decisions.
There are two legal cases ongoing related to Silfab, the Canadian manufacturer with plans to create 800 jobs at an industrial site between Interstate 77 and U.S. 21. Either could impact if or when the company can begin production.
Here’s the latest on those cases and the controversy:
Why is Silfab so controversial?
Silfab and the community surrounding its property disagree on the impact the company would have in Fort Mill.
Silfab contends it meets all environmental and land use rules it has to meet to produce solar cells in Fort Mill, and that there isn’t a threat to the community due to hazardous materials. Hundreds of area residents argue otherwise.
Residents say if chemicals used in solar cell production were to spill or escape the Silfab site, they could harm nearby properties.
Then, there’s the zoning issue. The Silfab site is zoned for light industrial use.
In December 2022, York County planning staff issued a letter to Silfab stating the company’s manufacturing would be allowed in light industrial areas. Planning staff didn’t have solar cell manufacturing named in its code. Staff determined it should fall under computer and electronics manufacturing, which is allowed in light industrial areas.
On May 9, the York County Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously to reverse the county zoning staff’s decision that solar panel manufacturing should be allowed in light industrial zoning. The appeals board said it should be considered heavy industrial, which is a different zoning.
York County issued a June 25 statement on Silfab, saying the zoning appeals board ruling doesn’t apply to Silfab since that company already received the go-ahead from county planners to set up on the Logistics Lane property. The ruling would only apply to future projects, according to the county.
Zoning Board of Appeals case
On June 28, Silfab and property owner Exeter 7149 Logistics filed an appeal of the May decision by the zoning appeals board in civil court. They asked for mediation before going to trial. If that didn’t work, they’d lay out their legal case against the appeals board decision.
Wally Buchanon, who owns neighboring property to the Silfab site, filed the appeal that set off the May 9 zoning appeals board decision. On July 24, Buchanon filed in civil court to become part of the appeal case by Silfab and Exeter.
The nonprofit Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity filed Sept. 3 to be added to the case. That group is the former Move Silfab campaign, which before that was called Stop Silfab. It formed online in opposition to the company manufacturing at its site in Fort Mill. A GoFundMe site for the nonprofit raised more than $25,000 for attorney fees and other legal costs.
Both Buchanon’s testimony to the zoning appeals board in May and arguments by Citizens Alliance as to why the appeals board decision should apply to the Silfab property are listed in the appeals case docket.
Silfab filed its opposition to Buchanon becoming a party in the case, and thus being part of mediation, on Monday morning. The company contends Buchanon wants to intervene for “improper purposes and to undermine the statutory appeal process.”
Citizens Alliance case against Silfab
Citizens Alliance filed a separate case in civil court Sept. 5 against Silfab, Exeter and York County through its planning department.
The filing asks a judge to designate the case as a class action, or where numerous people negatively impacted by the property’s development can be part of one case. When the case was filed, Citizens Alliance listed its membership at about 1,900 people.
The case calls for a temporary restraining order and an injunction to prohibit Silfab from further construction on its site. The nonprofit asks for a jury case.
Exeter filed this month to have its attorneys named as its representation in the case.
What’s at stake in the Silfab case?
York County negotiated with Silfab prior to the company announcing its plans for Fort Mill. Silfab got an economic incentive deal approved that included a 4% tax rate for 30 years and a $2 million state economic development grant. The typical manufacturing tax rate is 10.5%.
York County Council never reached full consensus on the deal. Council approved it in September of last year by a 4-3 vote.
\A major sticking point for community members has been two new schools under construction beside the property.
The Fort Mill School District is likely to settle on new attendance lines next month to determine which students will attend those schools. Flint Hill Elementary School will open next year, followed by Flint Hill Middle School in 2026.
