No ruling yet after Silfab Solar plant gets its day in York County court
Lawyers argued in York County court Monday over zoning issues and choices Silfab Solar made while building its manufacturing facility in Fort Mill.
During the appeal hearing held at the York County Moss Justice Center, Circuit Court Judge Keith Kelly listened to arguments from both sides. Cameron Halford represented nearby property owner Walter Buchanan and Brandon Gaskin represented Silfab Solar. Community members also packed into the courtroom to hear the status of Silfab Solar’s appeal.
Kelly didn’t issue a ruling after hearing from both sides and didn’t give an indication of when he could.
Silfab filed suit against the York County Board of Zoning Appeals after a zoning reversal threw their project into question. The Board of Zoning Appeals ruled that the type of manufacturing Silfab does is considered heavy industrial — yet the Silfab site is zoned for light industry.
Though, York County said the zoning board ruling only applies to future projects.
“The difficulties the appellants find themselves in are really a result of their own deliberate choices. Most recently, they put people to work inside this plant without an occupancy permit,” Halford said referencing a temporary stop work order that’s since been lifted.
Silfab Solar has ignored almost every rule and every law, relying on the zoning administrator, said Halford. It engaged in approximately 15 months of multi-million dollar facility production despite the Board of Zoning Appeals telling them “no.”
Halford accused Silfab, a Canadian-headquartered company, of having “a fundamental misunderstanding of American government or how local bodies of government work.”
Gaskin argued on behalf of Silfab Solar the motion to dismiss the zoning appeal is procedurally improper.
“We don’t even really know the grounds for this motion,” Gaskin said.
According to Gaskin, Silfab Solar has to follow a specific procedure of sending in a written petition of appeal, including 30 days to file documents once mediation is conducted and the parties reach an impasse.
“They are attempting to short circuit that statutory process, established by the General Assembly, and have our appeal kicked out on procedural rules that do not apply,” Gaskin said.
Community members against Silfab Solar
Attendees who spoke to The Herald said they were frustrated and concerned by the hearing's result; however, they are determined to remain focused on the case.
“I think it is pretty clear as to what’s happened. I think once he starts to uncover all of the motions that have been filed and the arguments that have been made, it’s going to be clear as to what needs to be done to make the community safe,” Brandon Langford said about Judge Kelly’s potential ruling. One of the most prominent community problems with Siflab is its proximity to Flint Hill Elementary and the future Flint Hill Middle School. “These are people’s lives at stake. Children, they don’t have any say in the matter. They don’t have a voice, and its up to people to do the right thing to make sure that everybody is protected and the law is being followed,” Langford said. “For York County to be involved in this case, and to sit with the appellant is a bit troubling as a taxpayer and as a citizen. They made a ruling back on May 9th, we expect for that ruling to stand on its own merits, and for them to sit with the appellant in this case is a bit concerning.”
