Silfab back in York County court, judge hears arguments about controversial plant
A York County judge heard arguments in court Tuesday concerning the Silfab Solar plant in Fort Mill and the county’s board of zoning appeals 2024 decision that said solar panel manufacturing is not allowed in a light industrial zoned area.
Yet the leader of a group of residents who have pushed against Silfab being located off U.S. 21 close to Carowinds, near two schools and residences, say they still have not been heard. More than two dozen people attended court on Tuesday, where Judge Bill Mckinnon took the matter under advisement without making any decisions.
The zoning appeals board decision is a crux of the case that those against Silfab have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on, although the highest court in the land has not yet said if it will take up the case. There have been several legal actions filed by Silfab opponents to try and stop the project.
Silfab filed a lawsuit against the zoning appeals board, which was the case heard Tuesday as Silfab appeals the board’s ruling saying solar is not allowed at the site.
Controversy has ramped up since March after two chemical incidents at the plant pushed state regulators to temporarily halt operations. About 300 gallons of potassium hydroxide spilled in early March, and there was also a hydrofluoric acid drip from a tank. The second incident prompted Flint Hill Elementary School, which shares a fence line with Silfab, to temporarily close for two days.
Silfab continues assembly operations at the site after that short hold on activity at the plant in March.
Silfab’s side
Silfab filed a lawsuit against the zoning appeals board, which was the case at hand Tuesday as Silfab appeals the ruling saying solar is not allowed at the site to the courts.
On one side of the issue and in the courtroom Tuesday at the Moss Justice Center in York is Silfab, which claims the zoning appeals board didn’t have authority to vote against the project when the York County Council — before 2024 — sought out Silfab to build the plant, then agreed to Silfab locating there. Silfab and the county agreed to a fee in lieu of taxes agreement for the $150 million investment, Silfab claims.
“York County Council ratified Silfab as legislatively approved,” Silfab lawyer Brandon Gaskins told McKinnon.
In a statement from a Silfab spokesperson after the hearing, Silfab said the site is zoned properly and whatever happens in the case heard Tuesday “will have no effect on their current operations.”
The other side: The public and lawyers for the zoning appeals board
On the other side — including dozens packed into that side of the courtroom at the Moss Justice Center on Tuesday — are the zoning appeals board’s attorneys and the people against Silfab’s site location.
They say the appeals board had every right to say the location was and still is zoned for light industrial and not the type of solar panel plant Silfab has there.
Ross Appel, a lawyer for the zoning appeals board, said the zoning board’s 2024 decision was specifically talking about solar and Silfab, which is the only solar manufacturer in York County. The zoning appeals board had the right to render a decision about Silfab, and residents have a right to be concerned because of “highly toxic chemicals” and “pollution and exposure,” Appel argued.
Cam Halford, a lawyer for Walter Buchanon, whose property sits next to Silfab, put it plainly to McKinnon.
“It is not permitted in a light industrial zone,” Halford argued about Silfab. “It’s a light industrial zone — always has been.”
Judge wants to think about it
McKinnon asked the sides during the hearing if the zoning appeals board has the authority to rule against the York County planning department after York County staff approved the Silfab site before the issue came to appeals board.
“The whole point of zoning is the county can say we want this and don’t want that,” McKinnon said.
Yet McKinnon also asked about the zoning appeals board being in existence for just that reason — to review decisions on zoning.
The zoning appeals board decision stated in its 2024 ruling against Silfab that “their own (York County) staff failed to present sufficient evidence for solar in a light industrial zoned area, McKinnon said.
Yet the zoning appeals board decision in 2024 did not mention Silfab specifically, McKinnon said several times. The decision was just about whether solar manufacture is allowed in light industrial zoning, he said.
The public against Silfab’s site
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican candidate for governor in the June primary, sat among the Move Silfab people. Mace has met with Silfab opponents previously and has voiced concerns about the location. Fort Mill state Rep. David Martin, who is running for re-election to House District 26 in a primary and has been vocal against the Silfab site, also was in court.
Other members of the public opposed to the Silfab site were in court. The group Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI) has filed the petition with the U.S. Supreme Court about permits being issued to Silfab to continue to build and operate after the zoning appeals board ruled against Silfab in 2024.
They have also continued with a publicity campaign about the site and what they say are dangers to the public and schools nearby. CAGI president Andy Lytle, an engineer who lives near the Silfab site and has been against the project for years, said afterward on Tuesday he is confident the judge will eventually uphold the zoning appeals board ruling from 2024.
“We believe the judge will affirm the BZA (board of zoning appeals) ruling,” Lytle said. “But his persistence about the BZA ruling being general and not specific didn’t make much sense when the very reason we were there today was because Silfab appealed the BZA decision.”
Lytle said Silfab’s lawyers were in court Tuesday but a crucial part of the process — the voice of the public — has yet to be heard.
“The citizens still have not had a day in court,” Lytle said.
