York County to SC Attorney General: We did nothing wrong in Silfab approval process

York County defended its handling of the controversial Silfab Solar permit approval process in response to the S.C. Attorney General demanding answers about that process — a move that followed two high-profile chemical spills at the Fort Mill area plant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, a Republican candidate for governor, sent a letter to York County Council last month demanding answers on how the Canadian solar panel manufacturer was approved to begin work at 7149 Logistics Lane in Fort Mill. That letter followed two chemical release incidents reported in early March.

The county released its response to Wilson on Thursday.

In a seven-page letter to Wilson, York County Manager Josh Edwards outlined a timeline of events while insisting the county followed all of its proper protocols in allowing the company to set up on Logistics Lane.

“The county’s position remains that all zoning approvals and permits were properly issued in accordance with the law and the county’s code of ordinances,” Edwards wrote.

York County details its Silfab role

Neighbors to the Silfab site warned York County for the past three years that a chemical spill could be disastrous. Most of them mentioned Flint Hill Elementary School, which opened last fall on a property adjacent to Silfab. Flint Hill Middle School will open this fall beside the elementary school.

Edwards cited a zoning verification letter issued by county planning staff in late 2022 as the county’s conclusion that solar panel manufacturing should be allowed at the Silfab site.

While there’s no defined process for York County Council to ratify that decision, a tax incentive agreement Council approved for Silfab in 2023 “ratified all prior actions taken with respect to the project,” Edwards wrote.

York County Council didn’t have a role in the initial zoning decision, Chairwoman Christi Cox wrote in a separate letter to Wilson. Council only approved a tax incentive agreement for the company to move to York County, although the board asked county staff to review the permitting issue after it became contentious.

“Council has taken no other action with respect to Silfab,” Cox wrote. “Council was not involved in and did not make any zoning decisions regarding Silfab and had no role in the issuance of any zoning verification, zoning compliance approval or applicant-specific permitting.”

Heated Silfab Solar issue in Fort Mill

Public pushback on Silfab has been ongoing for three years. The chemical incidents last month stoked further debate, due largely to Silfab’s location beside Flint Hill Elementary School.

York County’s zoning department initially told Silfab it would be allowed to operate in an area zoned for light industrial use. Then, the county Zoning Board of Appeals decided solar panel manufacturing should only be allowed on heavy industrial sites.

Because the Silfab project was underway before the May 2024 Zoning Board decision, though, York County maintains the company should be allowed to operate at its site.

Several court cases have been filed since. There’s a hearing planned on May 26 for the case where Silfab appealed the Zoning Board of Appeals ruling. Another case on whether the Zoning Board of Appeals decision should impact Silfab is on hold until the other appeal is resolved.

Silfab’s operation in Fort Mill includes both assembly and manufacturing. Assembly work, which doesn’t involve industrial chemicals, is ongoing. Manufacturing and chemical use aren’t.

A state environmental department review required before manufacturing can begin is expected to take eight weeks or longer, according to the county.

Silfab will have to provide notice to the state and county at least 72 hours before bringing any regulated chemicals onto its property, according to its agreement with the state environmental department.

York County also addressed recent 911 calls from the Silfab site. The Herald had requested and published calls from the week of the chemical releases.

The county determined “there is no indication that the calls involve hazardous chemicals at the facility that would affect the health or safety of employees or the public, and that nearly all calls reviewed stem from individual, medical situations of employees.”