Judge tosses challenge to York County’s handling of controversial Silfab project
A York County circuit judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the county’s handling of permits and zoning decisions tied to Silfab Solar’s planned manufacturing facility in Fort Mill.
In a Thursday news release, York County said the court order “confirms legitimacy of York County actions related to Silfab Solar” and rejects allegations that the county improperly changed zoning or otherwise broke the law in approving incentives for the project. The order, filed Jan. 21, dismissed a complaint brought by Dennis Floyd Bivins against York County and several top county administrators.
The judge ruled the plaintiff lacked legal standing to bring the case and also failed to state claims for which relief could be granted, according to the order and the county’s summary. York County said the court also found the specific remedies Bivins sought, including declaratory judgment, mandamus and a writ of prohibition, were improper.
In the lawsuit, Bivins sought court intervention that would have forced the county to halt work and revoke permits related to the project, according to the order.
The project has been hotly contested in Fort Mill, largely because of its proximity to nearby neighborhoods and schools. Opponents have raised environmental and health concerns, prompting reviews and studies including research by the University of South Carolina and a separate review commissioned by the Fort Mill School District.
Silfab Solar released a statement saying it’s pleased with the ruling.
“Silfab has complied with all laws and regulations, and we remain committed to being a valuable contributor to York County and a good neighbor to those in our immediate area,” the company said in a statement.
What’s in the order?
The judge’s order lays out the steps York County took as Silfab moved forward with the project. It says that in late 2022, the county’s zoning office sent Silfab a letter saying the company’s proposed solar panel manufacturing plans fit the property’s light industrial zoning. The order notes that no one appealed that determination.
In 2023, the order notes, county council voted to approve incentives for the project, passing an “inducement ordinance” that authorized a tax-incentive agreement with Silfab after three readings and a public hearing.
In its release, the county said the order “directly dispels recent public assertions” that council approved a zoning change through the inducement vote and “refutes the reckless, incorrect assertions by some that Council’s vote on the Inducement Ordinance was illegal.”
The county urged residents to remain respectful following the order.
“The County understands this issue has evoked a significant amount of passion from the community; however, it urges county citizens to be respectful in their disagreement and to avoid publicly advancing allegations or accusations in social media or otherwise regarding the legality of the County’s actions or impugning the character and conduct of individual members of Council and staff.
This story was originally published January 23, 2026 at 10:54 AM.
