Fort Mill’s Silfab solar panel plant remains in limbo as judge weighs 2 lawsuits
A judge is weighing whether to dismiss two lawsuits that leave the future of a $150 million Fort Mill manufacturing project in limbo, and a ruling could be weeks away.
Attorneys for Silfab Solar, the Canadian solar panel manufacturer at the center of the controversy, appeared in York County court on Wednesday seeking to toss out a lawsuit filed by a nonprofit group of residents who say Silfab’s plans would harm the environment and their health.
That same group also wants to toss out a separate lawsuit brought by Silfab that seeks to overturn a zoning decision by the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals.
Earlier this year, the board decided a solar panel facility would not be properly zoned for the area, but that ruling came only after county planners had already greenlit Silfab to use the property.
Judge Martha Rivers, visiting from Aiken County, made no immediate decision on the future of the two cases and said she could not guarantee a ruling before the new year. However, Rivers suspended the evidence-gathering process for both cases until she decides whether to dismiss them.
Citizens Alliance case against Silfab
Silfab’s project has generated controversy since last year when it was narrowly approved.
In a 4-3 decision, York County Council approved a tax incentive last September 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%.
In return, Silfab expects to bring 800 new jobs to the area.
But community members have been at odds with the company over its plans to build at 1749 Logistics Lane, an industrial site between Interstate 77 and U.S. 21. The plant’s location is next door to two future schools: Flint Hill Elementary School, which will open next year, and Flint Hill Middle School, which will open in 2026.
Silfab attorney Brandon Gaskins told the court that the company has been “slandered” as conspiring to poison children, and two county council members have received death threats since voting on the tax incentive.
The group leading the effort to stave off the company is nonprofit Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity, formerly named Move Silfab. Cameron Halford, the group’s attorney, said there are approximately 5,700 members, and more than $34,000 has been raised to support its legal battle.
Citizens Alliance filed suit against Silfab, property owner Exeter 7149 Logistics and the York County planning department on Sept. 5, in an attempt to halt construction on the site and void all permits.
The group also requested Rivers designate the case as a class action lawsuit, meaning numerous people negatively impacted could join together as part of a single case.
Halford’s argument emphasized the threat of a potential spill or leak of chemicals used in the manufacturing process could be harmful to nearby properties. He said the manufacturing involves the highly acidic hydrochloric acid, which must be treated by a million or more gallons of water a day, and smoke stacks that would emit exhaust over the nearby schools and residences.
“You don’t put this stuff around schools,” Halford said.
In his argument for dismissal, Gaskins said that although Citizens Alliance claims to represent thousands of people, it is unclear who those people are or how close to the future facility they live. Gaskins said Citizens Alliance lacked standing for the legal challenge because its members could not demonstrate a particular injury that has resulted from Silfab’s activities.
“There must be something more than just an allegation that this chemical release could happen in the future,” Gaskins said. “When you look at the complaint, it is clear that they failed to meet this standard.”
Zoning Board of Appeals case
Silfab and Exeter, the property owner, filed suit against the York County Board of Zoning Appeals in June after a zoning reversal threw their project into question.
In December 2022, York County planning staff issued a letter to Silfab stating the company was allowed to manufacture in light industrial areas like the Logistics Lane site, but the planning staff did not have solar cell manufacturing named in its zoning code. Staff determined it should be allowed in light industrial areas.
Wally Buchanon, the owner of a neighboring property, appealed the staff’s determination. The York County Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously in Buchanon’s favor in May and reversed course on the zoning staff’s decision. They said solar panel manufacturing should be considered heavy industrial, a different zoning that is not allowed at the Logistics Lane site.
York County issued a statement in June saying the zoning appeals board ruling did not apply to Silfab since it had already received approval from county planners to build on the Fort Mill property. The ruling would only apply to future projects, according to the county.
Buchanan filed to become part of this appeal case in July, and Citizens Alliance filed to join the case in September. The parties later filed a motion to dismiss the case on Nov. 15 and asked the court to revoke construction permits issued after the zoning appeal board’s May reversal.
Halford said the case boils down to the fact that Silfab is trying to operate in an area that is not properly zoned for solar panel manufacturing.
“They’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It doesn’t work,” Halford said.
This story was originally published December 19, 2024 at 6:00 AM with the headline "Fort Mill’s Silfab solar panel plant remains in limbo as judge weighs 2 lawsuits."
