Residents ask York County Council for audit and permit review over Silfab site near Fort Mill schools

Dozens of residents spoke during the public forum at the April 21 York County Council meeting to urge the council to order a public vote to audit Silfabfee-in-lieu arrangements and to review permits for a Silfab facility near Fort Mill schools.

Bridal McCluskey, speaking for residents, asked the council "to conduct a full audit of the SILFAB fee in lieu of tax at a scheduled council meeting to ensure compliance." McCluskey said that locating heavy industrial production near Fort Mill schools posed risks from chemicals she named, including silane and anhydrous ammonia, and said those risks could not be mitigated by sheltering in place or by existing school air-filtration systems.

Victoria Herbst, a Fort Mill resident, told council members she had followed prior discussions about zoning and said she was asking officials to "be bold, be brave" in enforcing zoning laws and protecting neighborhoods and schools. Scott Kochenour, representing a White Wolf Park neighborhood, asked council to pull consent agenda item number 3 (case number 204.2 as cited at the podium) and to deny the request; he described the change as "spot zoning" and said, "This will create another donut hole." Brandon Langford said he and his family moved to avoid sending their children to a school he characterized as next to heavy industrial activity, and he alleged due-process problems around appeals of planning approvals and continued issuance of permits. Ashley Horn also asked the council to schedule a public vote on auditing Silfab's fee-in-lieu of taxes.

Speakers referenced pending state legislation while urging local action: McCluskey cited "House Bill 4293 and Senate Bill 0530" as measures she said would preserve zoning enforcement and render permits issued in violation of zoning invalid. McCluskey and other commenters urged council to consider a temporary halt to construction or a revocation of permits until litigation and appeals are resolved; Brandon Langford said a permit was approved the afternoon of April 21 and asked the council to revoke Silfab's permits until legal proceedings conclude.

Council members addressed the concerns during the nonagenda portion of the meeting. Several council members expressed support for an audit of the fee-in-lieu arrangement and for a "cease and desist" or similar administrative action; those remarks came during member comments rather than as a formal motion on the council floor.

Why this matters: speakers framed the issue as both a public-safety concern for children at the nearby schools and as a procedural concern about zoning, appeals and whether county staff followed required processes. The council did not take a formal vote on an audit or on revoking permits at the April 21 meeting; several residents asked the council to add such a vote to a future scheduled meeting.

The public forum record at the April 21 meeting contains multiple citizen requests for action about the Silfab project; the council acknowledged the comments but did not adopt an audit or revocation motion during this meeting.