A circuit court judge said Tuesday morning he would take under advisement Silfab Solar’s appeal of a 2024 York County Board of Zoning Appeals ruling that solar panel manufacturing is not a permitted use at the company’s Fort Mill site under the property’s current zoning.
The hearing is the latest turn in a more than two year dispute between the manufacturer and Fort Mill area residents who say the plant should not operate near homes and schools off Logistics Lane.
At the hearing
The hearing lasted over two hours and drew an audience that included U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, state Rep. David Martin, and about 30 Fort Mill residents, according to Scott Jensen of Move Silfab, the grassroots group that has campaigned against the facility. Jensen attended the hearing and provided an account afterward on the group’s Facebook page.
Attorneys for Silfab and the property’s owner argued that the BZA exceeded its authority and that the company already held the necessary approvals before the board’s May 2024 ruling, Jensen said.
Cam Halford, the attorney representing Fort Mill resident Wally Buchanan, who joined the case as an intervenor, defended the procedure and substance of the BZA’s appeal process, Jensen said. The York County Board of Zoning Appeals appeared as the respondent.
The judge ended the hearing by saying he would take the matter under advisement, Jensen said, leaving the timing of a ruling open.
The underlying ruling
The BZA voted unanimously on May 9, 2024, to reverse a determination by the county’s zoning administrator that solar panel manufacturing fell within the manufacturing category permitted at the 7149 Logistics Lane property under its light industrial zoning. The board found that solar panel manufacturing did not fit within the broader electrical parts manufacturing use category.
York County has said the May 2024 ruling does not apply to the Silfab facility because the company was granted manufacturing permits in 2022. Silfab and the property’s owner appealed the decision in state court, and that case is the one heard Tuesday.
Companion cases
A separate civil suit filed by Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity, the nonprofit affiliated with Move Silfab, has been stayed pending resolution of the BZA appeal. According to York County government statements, that case challenges the applicability of the BZA decision to Silfab’s facility and the permits the county subsequently issued.
Earlier this month, Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to review whether York County violated constitutional due process protections by continuing to issue permits after the BZA ruling.
If the circuit court upholds the BZA ruling, Jensen said his group will move immediately to lift the stay on the companion lawsuit challenging the county’s permits.
Broader context
The legal fight has intensified since two chemical incidents at the plant in early March, including a release involving potassium hydroxide and a separate release involving hydrofluoric acid. The incidents prompted the closure of Flint Hill Elementary School, which sits next to the facility, and led the state to order a halt to manufacturing operations at the site.
York County has said that since mid March only solar assembly work has been taking place at the facility, and that no manufacturing operations using regulated chemicals are occurring. The county has also said it does not expect those operations to resume before May 29, after the close of the school year.
Silfab has said the facility supports nearly 800 jobs in York County and the surrounding area and that the company is committed to protecting public health and safety.
A ruling from the circuit court is expected in the coming weeks.
Sign up for our Sunday Spectator. Delivered to your inbox every Sunday, with all the news from the week.
