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

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.