As York Co. residents protest, Silfab responds to calls to halt massive project
Two York County Council members have called for Silfab Solar to cease construction on its Fort Mill manufacturing facility, but the company’s attorney said acting on that request would be illegal.
In a May 9 letter to county attorneys, Silfab lawyer Brandon Gaskins asked council members to stop calling for cease and desists, which he said gives citizens false hope that council could intervene in the future.
Council members Tom Audette and Debi Cloninger have said they wanted a cease and desist and an audit of Silfab’s tax incentive deal. Neither suggestion has made it onto a meeting agenda for discussion and possible vote.
“Put simply, these requests are irresponsible, create confusion, and would only expose the County to significant liability exposure if granted,” Gaskins said in the letter.
The controversy over the $150 million project started in 2023, when the council approved a 4% tax rate incentive for 30 years and a $2 million state economic development grant. The typical manufacturing tax rate is 10.5%.
The project garnered the ire of community members who say it’s not properly zoned for the area and could harm nearby schools and houses.
Community members gathered to protest Silfab before Monday night’s council meeting, then packed the council chambers to ask leaders to take action. Attorneys advised county leaders not to publicly comment on the matter because it is in litigation, council Chairperson Christi Cox said. Council discussed the issue with county attorneys during an executive session.
Audette and Cloninger did not renew their calls for a cease and desist, but both said they’d like to review more information about Silfab and continue the discussion during the June 16 meeting.
“This is a big issue, and, again, we want to make sure that we’re continuing to talk through this,” Audette said.
Silfab rebukes cease and desist
Gaskins’ letter accused Audette and Cloninger of misleading the public, though he doesn’t mention them by name. The Silfab site is located near the border between their districts.
During an April 21 meeting, Audette said five homes in his neighborhood had sold because of concerns about Silfab, and Cloninger said she fielded calls from children who were scared to go to school next to the company.
“This is very, very heartbreaking,” Audette said at the time.
But according to the Canada-based company, there are only two lawful ways to stop Silfab’s construction. Neither involves County Council, Gaskins said.
The zoning administrator could revoke permits or approvals “if certain conditions exist, none of which are present here,” Gaskins said. A second option involves a court injunction, but a judge already rejected a request to halt construction in a Jan. 29 order pausing one of the ongoing lawsuits.
“While council members are certainly entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts,” Gaskins said. “And, in this instance, the simple facts are that a cease-and-desist order is not an available remedy and that County Council lacks the authority to unilaterally stop Silfab’s work.”
Community renews call to move Silfab
Protesters outside the York County Government Center said they wanted the council to revoke Silfab’s permits.
“Basically, we’re asking them to find a backbone,” said John Wirth, who protested with his wife and lives less than a mile from Silfab. “This is not something that two or three people disagree with. There’s a large group of people.”
Grassroots community group Move Silfab organized the demonstration. Move Silfab is the same group behind Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity, which is entangled in two lawsuits against Silfab and has raised tens of thousands of dollars towards their fight.
The group takes particular issue with Silfab’s proximity to two new schools that will open next door to the facility. More than 800 students are projected to attend Flint Hill Elementary School this fall.
“The bottom line is, when you look at the quantity of chemicals they’re going to be storing less than 1,300 feet from an elementary school, that should be everyone’s concern,” said Carl Young, a Fort Mill dad and chemist. “That’s the crux of this issue.”
Silfab was recruited to locate its solar cell manufacturing facility in York County, according to the letter. In December 2022, county zoning staff said solar cell manufacturing was allowed in light industrial areas, such as the site of Silfab’s facility at 7149 Logistics Lane. Silfab obtained permits and began construction “at its considerable expense,” Gaskins said.
Then, in May 2024, the York County Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously determined solar cell manufacturing was not allowed in light industrial areas. The county quickly issued a statement saying that ruling only applied to future construction and did not impact Silfab, which was already approved for the area.
Silfab has relied on that statement to move forward with construction, spending tens of millions of dollars and hiring hundreds of employees in the process, Gaskins said.
Demonstration organizers were aware of the letter Silfab sent county lawyers. Move Silfab and Citizens Alliance leader Scott Jensen said his group’s lawyer disagreed with that interpretation.
“That was completely inappropriate for an attorney of an opposing side to send a county a legal recommendation,” Jensen said. “It’s incorrect legal advice.”
This story was originally published May 20, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
