Residents raise concerns about county zoning appeal counsel during public forum over Silfab Solar case

At the Aug. 18 York County Council public forum, several residents asked the council to investigate the county’s legal representation in the ongoing court appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) decision involving Silfab Solar.

Ashley Horn, who identified herself as a Regent Park resident, urged the council to seek the resignation of the attorney she said represents the York County BZA in the Silfab Solar appeal. Horn said the BZA had unanimously ruled that a solar-cell manufacturing use is not allowed in a light-industrial zone and said county-authorized outside counsel had appeared in court in ways she described as siding with the appellant.

“As a taxpayer and citizen, this is deeply troubling,” Horn said during the public forum. She told the council the BZA “deserves proper representation of their decision” and described courtroom comments she said indicated counsel told a judge the county was “staying neutral.” Horn added allegations about overlapping personal and professional relationships among outside attorneys but did not present documentary evidence to the council during the public forum.

Another resident, Frank Jurnak, addressed the council on the same topic and focused on procedural questions. Jurnak told the council that, based on his reading of county code, construction plan approval does not substitute for zoning compliance and that an appellant’s ability to challenge zoning and administrative interpretations remains under the county code and by BZA process. He said staff’s denial of an appeal and the July 10 council action had denied the appellant “the right to be meaningfully heard.”

Council chair and staff reminded speakers that the Silfab Solar matter is in active litigation and that public hearings on contested items should follow the county’s hearing schedule; the meeting record shows the council did not take formal action in response to the forum comments. The public forum rules announced at the meeting also advised that speakers who intended to address pending public-hearing items should wait to speak during the relevant public hearing to ensure their remarks relate to the agenda item.

The transcript shows residents raised concerns about counsel and process; council members and staff did not respond with commitments to specific personnel actions during the meeting. The record indicates the Silfab matter remains in circuit court and that procedural disputes are being litigated there.