Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents urge pause on Silfab Solar permitting after stop-work order and safety claims
Loading...
Summary
Multiple residents raised safety and process concerns about Silfab Solar during public comment, citing a county stop-work order, alleged fire- and life-safety violations, and potential risks to the Catawba River watershed. Speakers asked council to pause further permitting until regulators and county staff provide transparency and enforcement.
During public comment at the York County Council meeting July 21, residents urged the council to halt permitting related to the Silfab Solar project and to provide the public with more information about enforcement actions taken at the site.
Bridal McCluskey (resident, Fort Mill) told council members she believes the county has sent mixed messages about how legislative incentives and zoning interact around the Silfab project, saying county approvals that were described as "FILO related only" nevertheless appear to have legislative components and cited ordinance 6623 as an example of council action tied to the project.
"This testimony was clearly intended to influence the BZA," McCluskey said, describing a difference of opinion she sees between council statements and senior staff testimony before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Fort Mill resident Jared Morocco described on-the-ground safety problems that led county inspectors to issue a stop-work order before it was lifted. Morocco said workers were operating without occupancy permits, exits were blocked, emergency lights were not functioning, fuel tanks were placed too close to structures, and alarm and sprinkler systems were not in service.
"These are serious safety violations and ones they didn't fix voluntarily," Morocco said. "If this is how they act under close scrutiny, what happens once the facility is fully operational and the spotlight fades?"
Another speaker, identified as Heidi (resident), read a list of chemicals she said would be associated with operations and transport to the site and asked council to put the matter on an agenda and hold a town meeting to address resident questions. The list cited in public comment included hydrofluoric acid, xylene, anhydrous ammonia, potassium hydroxide, triethyl aluminum, phosphorus oxychloride, hydrochloric acid, liquid oxygen and nitrous oxide; speakers asked county staff to verify any chemical inventories and transport routes.
There was no staff motion or vote on permitting at the meeting; these remarks were made in the public forum portion of the agenda. Planning staff and county counsel noted the topic's related litigation and advised caution about commenting on matters that were part of active appeals. Council asked staff to coordinate how information is shared with the public and reiterated that enforcement and permitting issues should follow existing legal processes.
Council did not take a formal vote to suspend permitting at the meeting.
