[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6544932,"mediaKeyId","3393880-2dbb5096f2f81f2da2ccb868cda76b08","parentId",3393880,"title","Dozens of Fort Mill residents urge York County to revoke Silfab permits; council reviews materials, authorizes press release","audioSeconds",942,"startMs",180416,"endMs",1123348,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3393880-2dbb5096f2f81f2da2ccb868cda76b08&start=180&end=1123","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3393880-2dbb5096f2f81f2da2ccb868cda76b08/thumbnail_180416.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6544932/York-County/South-Carolina/Dozens-of-Fort-Mill-residents-urge-York-County-to-revoke-Silfab-permits-council-reviews-materials-authorizes-press-release","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6544932-cae9e86f00fbd2d15af4e53fe557dcd9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150184&Signature=Ed6sXc7eZw-naJ0azikuneot9g9tNN0W-1SJHU9OhGZ8bn8QfFPm6zHWGh5nvTW0KZ~9LTFQz7vc780DFHOTZ1Lo5rQueQD1WptWslLesBmtcFfnYPhdIm8g7ZwtXTcNGp01YXvvrQRQuH-Ou1A4dGm~4BR~2Q9lZT9P0VxqM5eTXDxL8yydmK93iFAcKY95O4xMPDeiyC9vE9bZsRG-k8a9JEXPVnxF-T9jJWpiaE~Xli9Yke1bHCt4kIgFK4LYvCkLtnixNI3W3dMlLviZ5thjxjW5uDngcyoZDPncOtKl4gel8pkdKky1cDLjwkHWZDMNbqNj--BxZM70qqHTIA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","York County SC","date","2025-05-19T00:00:00Z","article","Dozens of residents from Fort Mill and nearby neighborhoods told York County Council on May 19 that Silfab Solar’s Fort Mill operations amount to heavy industrial chemical manufacturing and asked the county to revoke construction and site permits issued to the company.

Speakers described large volumes of hazardous materials, claimed onsite wastewater treatment and water use at about 1,000,000 gallons per day, and said independent reviewers including the USC Arnold School of Public Health had expanded worst-case dispersion scenarios for several chemicals. “Light industrial does not include hazardous material treatment and storage facilities,” resident Lana Vivant said. “The BZA concluded there was an administrative error and zoning code paragraph 155.1239 states a permit or approval may be revoked at any time prior to completion.”

Why it matters: Commenters said the facility sits adjacent to Flint Hill Elementary and Flint Hill Middle School and to surrounding neighborhoods, and that potential accidental releases could affect schools, daycares and senior facilities. Several speakers urged the council to act under the county zoning code and to audit the fee-in-lieu-of-tax (FILOT) and grant approvals tied to the project.

What residents said: At the public forum, Brandon McCluskey cited USC’s phase-two modeling and summarized it for the council: “Expanded worst-case scenarios in phase 2 include a hydroxyammonia at 2.2 miles and hydrofluoric acid at 2.4 miles, showing this affects both York and Mecklenburg County,” he said, later noting the GHS (Globally Harmonized System) warnings for hydrofluoric acid as “fatal if inhaled” and “fatal if swallowed.” Several other speakers — including Natalia Mitchell, Brandon Dunford, Jamie Costilla, Jennifer Williams, David Ortiz, Ashley Horn and Marissa Robbins — repeated calls for the zoning administrator to revoke issued permits, noting they believed the operation exceeds “light industrial” limits and pointing to past BZA decisions.

County response and legal context: Council members and staff noted there are pending lawsuits and that some zoning and permit questions are before the circuit court. “York County has been named as a defendant in one of these actions and the county is defending itself,” the chair told the chamber, noting county attorneys have advised limited public comment while litigation is active. Speakers repeatedly asked the council to act under section 155.1239 of the county zoning code, which the public cited as allowing revocation of permits issued in error or procured by materially incorrect information.

Council action and next steps: The council held an executive-session briefing that included legal advice on Silfab matters. After the session, council approved a motion authorizing the county manager and the county council chairwoman to issue a press release about the matter as discussed in executive session. The motion passed unanimously. Council members also asked staff to put the Silfab materials discussed in executive session on the June 16 agenda so councilors could review the documents provided that night.

What the record shows and what it does not: Speakers described quantities (for example, references to “over 500,000 pounds of chemicals” and large storage of regulated hazardous materials, plus on-site wastewater treatment) and cited independent reports; those descriptions are reported here as statements by speakers. County staff and counsel told the council they were limited in public comment because litigation is pending and certain permitting decisions and environmental permits are outside county jurisdiction, as noted in a county statement referenced by speakers.

Community context: Public commenters repeatedly said schools and residential areas lie adjacent to the site and asked the council to use its zoning-ordinance authority while also noting that state environmental permits and other approvals are handled by state regulators. Council members accepted the request to schedule a follow-up discussion and authorized a public statement by county leadership.

Ending: The Silfab matter remains under both administrative challenge and in circuit court; councilors directed staff to provide the materials shown in executive session at the June 16 meeting and authorized the county manager and chairwoman to issue the press release approved in executive session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","York County CTC, Workshop, and Council Meetings May 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Dozens of residents from Fort Mill and surrounding neighborhoods urged York County Council on May 19 to revoke Silfab Solar’s permits, saying the company’s Fort Mill operations are heavy industrial chemical manufacturing sited adjacent to schools and homes and asking the council to act under county zoning code 155.1239.","taxTitle","York County, South Carolina","taxId",5759,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6544926,"York County council debates recreation tax, budget amendments; council approves second readings and a mix of amendments",0,375895,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3393880-2dbb5096f2f81f2da2ccb868cda76b08&start=375&end=375","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3393880-2dbb5096f2f81f2da2ccb868cda76b08/thumbnail_375895.jpg","/articles/6544926/York-County/South-Carolina/York-County-council-debates-recreation-tax-budget-amendments-council-approves-second-readings-and-a-mix-of-amendments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6544926-0b969979125e1b8d1bd3ecbf007224f9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771150184&Signature=anYe2UdELnmotqOW4ckwy-zJZy-f4k-MbWiG06~1lsF1hGiKIt01TQW9giPEDX~qo98inCYlXwktopEXEsuPRXQjCsaRB1w2~8ernrQrqseu4lrddpzbUiWyZVdv5T9ItPojUQYmsVOy9O1bEIGtSw~9lV1pZ80r5XPNHYaNvjOm4MBb6SH~H4Yvc0tKbY5bJokMCAp~RxegBW10g14yeFP2ynO2CxTQUF4qo-2sjaSFSlAkh844~05dTc5gpDAGqfbAOUdlIv7jQXaOoYg9ha31Q2964jTYTe~ZQ74HK1BEmATjXWos9unLrWaRsV6C3smFN7tuGlqxRA-7NFihQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","York County Council spent the bulk of its May 19 meeting on the county budget, the future of the long‑running recreation tax, and related appropriations and amendments.

Lede: Councilors debated whether to keep a 1.5‑mill recreation tax that had applied only to unincorporated residents or abolish the special recreation district and replace the funding mechanism with a countywide program. Speakers and councilors framed the issue as a choice between maintaining longstanding municipal‑funding arrangements and creating a more uniform countywide approach with new oversight and a proposed stipend model.

Nut graf: The council ultimately approved second reading of the county’s fiscal-year budget ordinance and also approved second reading of an ordinance to abolish the York County Recreation Tax District effective Dec. 31, 2025. During the meeting members proposed, amended and voted on several funding changes and line‑item reallocations (including a reallocation funding Nanny’s Mountain master plan from H‑tax money). Several suggested amendments failed, some passed; staff were asked to produce follow‑up budget reports ahead of final reading.

Key points of debate: Council members and municipal representatives disagreed about transparency of historic recreation tax disbursements, how municipalities accounted for program participants, and whether a per‑child stipend (a proposed $75 figure was discussed) could fairly replace prior practice. Supporters of the countywide approach said it would be fairer and provide centralized accountability for fund distribution; opponents said municipalities have already invested heavily in parks and needed predictable funding and clearer data on participation.

Amendments and outcomes: Councilors proposed multiple amendments during second reading. Notable outcomes included:
- A motion to restore the 1.5‑mill unincorporated recreation tax to the budget failed (amendment defeated on voice vote).
- Council approved a revenue‑neutral reallocation to fund the Nanny’s Mountain master plan by reallocating $60,000 from a Field Day Park H‑tax allocation and adjusting millage; the motion passed (council recorded outcome: approved).
- Several nonprofit funding requests (Keystone, Safe Passage, Catawba Mental Health) were discussed; several councilors asked staff to model the requests and return with options before final reading rather than vote tonight.

Other votes and approvals: Council also took or recorded votes on multiple items during the meeting (voice votes unless otherwise recorded). Among the actions taken or forwarded:
- Approved second reading of the fiscal-year budget ordinance (motion carried). Council also debated multiple companion amendments to reduce recurring expenses and reallocate one-time funds.
- Approved second reading of an ordinance to abolish the York County Recreation Tax District effective 12/31/2025 (motion carried).
- Approved second reading of personnel policy amendments (sick leave bank usage, parental and bereavement leave) (motion carried). Those changes were non‑recurring in budget terms and are administrative policy changes.
- Awarded a construction contract for the York County Coroner’s facility to the lowest responsive bidder, J and B Services LLC, for approximately $4.79 million (motion carried unanimously).
- Approved first reading of a zoning amendment to raise allowed height for data centers (subsequently approved on first reading); the council limited that specific change to data‑center uses following Planning Commission referral. A later related countywide height discussion was referred to committee.
- Approved second reading of a rezoning (Case 25‑09) with deed‑restriction language to be finalized before third reading.
- After executive session, council authorized condemnation for a Flint Hill Street drainage improvement project (motion carried) and directed the county manager and chairwoman to issue a Silfab‑related press release consistent with executive‑session advice (see separate article).

Why it matters: The long‑running recreation tax debate affects funding for programs used by youth, seniors and disabled residents across municipalities and unincorporated areas. The budget debate also exposed tensions about transparency and program measurement, and the council’s decisions will shape how municipalities and the county coordinate recreation and capital spending.

Forward look: Council directed staff to model nonprofit and municipality stipend proposals and provide follow‑up budget reports before third reading and final adoption. The Silfab materials discussed in executive session were placed on the June 16 agenda for further review.","Council held a lengthy budget debate focused on replacing the unincorporated recreation tax with a countywide tax, considered multiple amendments and funding requests for nonprofits and parks, approved second readings of the county budget and other ordinances, and voted on a range of related items.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Dozens of Fort Mill residents urge York County to revoke Silfab permits; council reviews materials, authorizes press release

York County council debates recreation tax, budget amendments; council approves second readings and a mix of amendments