“Stop Silfab” publishes letter in response to York County release
Full letter below from the group Move Silfab
For IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FORT MILL, SC— Tuesday, May 27, York County issued a carefully worded statement devoid of facts, which furthers due process by deference to Silfab, not diligence to the citizens of Fort Mill. York County historically only comments on legal matters when they feel the need to control the narrative, deceiving the public. There have been ongoing failed communications urging counsel and staff to obey the law of the BZA determination, which has now necessitated this statement. The YC management statement is issued by unelected officials and one (1) councilperson.
On December 27th 2022, Silfab was issued a zoning verification letter. The letter is not signed by the zoning administrator. Rather, it is signed by a subordinate. By law, it is not a zoning approval. The letter states that Silfab must comply with ALL York County codes, and clearly Silfab does not, as they never even attempted to seek a variance or change in use.
In September of 2023 a fee in lieu of tax (FILOT) was approved by controversial 4-3 vote of council, who now fails to take action. The FILOT is totally irrelevant to the zoning issue involving no change of use, nor variance of any type. It was merely a vote on tax issues. Yet, York County mentions it in its latest un-signed management statement as if it completes some form of contract, and despite the erroneous zoning letter not being signed by the zoning administrator.
In February 2024, after York County repeatedly conveyed to the public that Silfab’s operation was allowed in a Light Industrial district (by matching a NAICS code instead of zoning code) and ignoring the rest of the zoning code – a neighboring property owner officially requested a zoning interpretation in writing from the zoning administrator. The proposition that the interpretation that solar panel manufacturing in a Light Industrial district was appealed by said neighboring property owner.
On May 9, 2024 the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) heard the appeal. The BZA immediately and unanimously ruled that solar panel manufacturing was prohibited in a Light Industrial district. This should have been the end of it. The ruling was supported by overwhelming evidence that the ruling applied to Silfab specifically, including data used in Silfab’s air pollution permit application. The ruling was officially written and distributed to Silfab on May 30, 2024. The written decision of the BZA included a statement that staff failed to provide any evidence other than matching the NAICS code. The NAICS code is not referenced by the zoning code in effect. Nothing happened immediately thereafter.
On June 25, 2024 YC issued an un-signed management statement. The statement said the BZA ruling did not apply to Silfab. Yet, Silfab directly appealed the BZA ruling to circuit court. If the BZA determination did not apply to Silfab, then Silfab was not aggrieved by the decision and would be appealing a decision favorable to Silfab. Conversely, evidence exists demonstrating that YC believed the decision to apply to Silfab. The Silfab appeal sought mediation. In the interim, Walter Buchanan intervened as neighboring property owner to the Silfab site. The intervention was immediately granted by circuit court judge Hon. Marvin Dukes order, thus no back-room deal could be consummated at mediation solely involving YC and Silfab.
On June 28, 2024 YC Planning and Development issued the first of many construction permits to Silfab, defying the BZA ruling. The only permit previous to June 28, 2024 was for parking lot modification. The building permit issued June 28 indicating that civil plans had been approved. Neighboring property owners immediately appealed the civil plan approval, which is allowed by state law. The appeal is denied by YC Staff. Repeated attempts were made to YC manager and council with no response. This left the citizens group (organized as CAGI) with no choice but to file a lawsuit with the circuit court. In late 2024, Silfab made a motion to dismiss the CAGI lawsuit. CAGI made a motion to dismiss the Silfab appeal as to the BZA ruling. To date, Silfab articulates no error by the BZA Board. In December, 2024 both motions were presented to the circuit court in one hearing. In January, 2024 the ruling of Hon. Martha Rivers was published, which preserved the CAGI lawsuit until after the appeal of the BZA decision by Silfab is final.
On April 21, 2025 mediation occurred. The mediation included CAGI members, Intervenor Walter Buchanan, Silfab, Exeter and York County. On May 2, 2025 an impasse was filed by the mediator with circuit court. Silfab now has to continue with their appeal of the BZA ruling. It is important to note that over one year has passed since the BZA ruling May 9, 2024 and York County has permitted Silfab many unlawful permits despite the BZA reversal. Silfab to date fails to articulate any error of law, arbitrary or capricious conduct of any BZA Board member. The findings of the BZA board carry the weight of findings by a jury and was supported by overwhelming evidence the decision applied to the Silfab project.
The CAGI lawsuit, stayed but still pending, is not seeking any monetary damages.
We know now based on a neutral third party report provided by the University of South Carolina (USC) department of health that over 53,000 people may be affected by an accidental spill, which would most likely occur outside during a tanker truck transfer to Silfab on-site tanks. SCDES has nothing to do with the transport of chemicals. That duty falls to SCDOT, who has only recommended that the Highway 21 road project be completed before Silfab opens. The EPA has only acknowledged receipt of Silfab RMP (risk management plan). The EPA has made no comment as to the validity of this plan. That is why CAGI asked USC to analyze the risk. The completed initial phase of this study indicates the extent of the areas of risk to the public. A future phase, currently in process, will indicate the severity of these risks.
Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI) was formed out of necessity to fight overt circumventions of due process by the corporation and the county. We demand integrity, and we will continue to fight until we get it.
For more information, please visit our resources page and our chemicals page where all supporting documentation can be viewed.
Move Silfab
Protect our Kids. Protect Fort Mill.
visit MoveSilfab.com to learn how to join the movement
…
