Should York County have to explain its Silfab decision? Here’s the latest appeal
York County planners don’t have to answer questions on how they allowed Silfab Solar to begin construction in Fort Mill, after several narrow votes Thursday night.
The county Board of Zoning Appeals sided three times with county planning staff — each time by a 3-2 vote — after an appeal for explanation. The controversial Silfab project aims to bring solar panel manufacturing to a site under construction at 7149 Logistics Lane.
Neighbors near the project have argued for more than a year that dangerous chemicals could make the site unsafe, while Silfab contends it has all safety approvals and will follow all safety protocols.
The zoning appeals board narrowly decided planners have a responsibility to interpret zoning code, but not to interpret their reasons for approving a project.
“We deserve clarity,” said Fort Mill resident John Lee, who filed the recent appeals.
Silfab appeals decision for Fort Mill site
Lee, a vocal critic of Silfab moving into the Fort Mill space, asked the county for a zoning code interpretation in March.
Lee asked if the property’s transition from a vacant distribution warehouse to a manufacturing site counts as a change in use. He also asked where the code states a zoning administrator can determine zoning compliance before an application is submitted without an order from the appeals board. And, Lee asked if the Silfab project had any exemption from zoning compliance.
County planners rejected the interpretation request in April.
Staff argued none of the questions asked to clarify the zoning code, but instead the request “seeks to manufacture a new challenge to the validity of a project with which (Lee) is not affiliated, and which received civil site plan approval with zoning compliance more than a year ago,” according to staff’s response to the appeals board.
York County gets a handful of zoning interpretation requests each year, said Jonathan Buono, county planning and development services director. They’re almost always from property owners looking to clarify what’s allowed on their property, he said.
“What is generally new is trying to use an administrative process, like a zoning code interpretation, to back door a review,” Buono said.
Lee got 25 files from the county including permit applications and letters of plan reviews, he said, but no application for zoning compliance. He also didn’t get any approval letter signed by the zoning administrator showing the Silfab project should be allowed, he said.
“This raised a serious process question,” Lee said. “How could this project continue without a compliance approval from the zoning administrator for a new use, let alone a prohibited one?”
Zoning appeals board decision on Silfab
Thursday wasn’t the first time a Silfab opponent looked to leverage the zoning appeals board. A neighbor to the Fort Mill property argued in May of last year that solar panel manufacturing should only be allowed in areas zoned for heavy industrial use. The Logistics Lane site is zoned light industrial.
The appeals board agreed, overturning a prior county staff ruling that solar panel manufacturing should be allowed on light industrial properties. Anti-Silfab protesters have repeatedly used that appeals board decision since, though the county contends it only applies to future cases. The county argues that since Silfab got its zoning compliance confirmed — even if the appeals board later disagreed that it should have — the company can continue with plans.
Silfab legal challenges continue
In June of last year, Silfab filed a legal appeal to the York County Board of Zoning Appeals decision. Dozens of actions and filings later, the case hasn’t been resolved. The next court date listed is Aug. 4.
In a separate case, anti-Silfab group Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity filed a complaint in September against Silfab, property owner Exeter 7149 Logistics and the county planning department. The group seeks a class action suit to stop Silfab from operating in Fort Mill after the zoning appeals board decision.
In March, a judge ruled the Citizens Alliance case against Silfab should be put on hold until Silfab’s appeal case is resolved. The Silfab appeal case, the court reasoned, would “resolve many of the issues” brought up in the Citizens Alliance case, according to the March ruling.
County planners noted in their response to Lee’s claims Thursday that the case remains tied up in litigation, but he argues the court process has nothing to do with his request.
“Just because others have sought to resolve this matter in court to protect their rights, does not strip me of my rights to seek interpretation,” Lee said.
Lee asked the zoning appeals board to have staff answer his questions, and schedule a new hearing to determine whether county planners acted appropriately in approving the Silfab zoning.
Silfab remains contentious in York County
Massive crowds have gathered for more than a year to protest Silfab. They’ve addressed York County Council and the Fort Mill School District board numerous times. Two new schools under construction right beside the Silfab site have been cited as a reason to move the solar panel company elsewhere. Two York County Council members described getting harassing letters or death threats over Silfab.
In addition to legal questions, though, there are also significant financial implications in whether Silfab operates in Fort Mill.
York County agreed to a tax incentive deal with Silfab two years ago based on the company bringing 800 jobs and a $150 million investment. York County Council voted for that agreement 4-3, amid concerns then related to safety and zoning questions from the public.
This story was originally published July 11, 2025 at 11:04 AM.
