Silfab Solar and Residents Face Off in Fort Mill Zoning Appeal

A legal battle over the zoning of a new solar panel manufacturing facility in Fort Mill, South Carolina, has entered a new phase as an appeal hearing concluded recently. The case involves Silfab Solar, Inc., and its property owner, Exeter 7149 Logistics, L.P., appealing a decision by the York County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The BZA’s decision was in favor of a resident who challenged the facility’s “light-industrial” zoning status.

On May 9, 2024, the Board of Zoning Appeals delivered a verdict that resonated deeply with more than 300 local Fort Mill residents: the decision to classify the proposed Silfab Solar panel manufacturing facility under “Light Industrial” zoning was reversed. This decision was sent back to the York County Council for further review, reflecting the community’s strong concerns. However, on June 25, 2024, York County stated that the BZA ruling only applied to light industrial zoning going forward and not to Silfab’s previous approval. This clarification set the stage for the current legal dispute.

The lawsuit was filed by the Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity, a group that seeks to block Silfab Solar from operating at the site.  Silfab Solar has since appealed this decision, arguing that the site is properly zoned and that the facility does not pose health or safety hazards.

The court case is part of a series of legal and public challenges to the project. The York County facility was temporarily shut down after an inspection found workers operating without proper permits. A former employee has also filed a separate lawsuit against Silfab, alleging wrongful termination after reporting safety violations.

Former Employee Sues Silfab, Alleges Retaliation Over Safety Violations at York County Plant

In a related filing, “Appellants Silfab Solar, Inc. and Exeter 7149 Logistics, L.P.’s Joint Response in Opposition to Intervenor Walter Buchanan’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment,” the companies argue that the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to this appeal. The companies cited the case Newton v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals for Beaufort County, stating that the only requirement for preserving an issue on appeal is to set forth the issues in a written petition, which they have done. This filing directly opposes the intervenor’s motion to dismiss, which was based on the argument that the issues were not properly preserved during the administrative process.

The outcome of the judge’s decision is uncertain, and the case could be further complicated by two bills under consideration by the South Carolina Legislature, Senate Bill 530 and House Bill 42-93, which could impact the project’s zoning.

Senator Michael Johnson Files Bill to Strengthen Zoning Appeals Rulings in Wake of Silfab Dispute