Residents urge York County Council to pause Silfab permits, allege zoning and state-law violations

Dozens of York County residents told the County Council on Jan. 20 that permits tied to the Silfab (sometimes referenced in the record as SILFAB) data-center project were issued without required zoning approvals and in violation of state law, and several speakers urged the council to put a pause on further permits.

In public comments, Patrick Lloyd said, "This project did not move forward by accident," and argued the council’s inducement ordinance and related agreement set the project in motion but did not remove the need for zoning compliance. Britney Gildner told the council, "The property at 7149 Logistics Lane changed from distribution to manufacturing," and said that change of use required a traffic impact analysis and a civil site plan that were not completed before permits were issued.

Multiple speakers cited specific provisions as they appeared in the meeting record. Jennifer Williams told the council that York County code section 155.1123 requires zoning-compliance approval by the zoning administrator and said that did not occur. David Ortiz cited a state provision read in the record as "South Carolina code 6 29 9 5 0," saying permits issued without the zoning administrator's approval are unlawful under state law. Andrea Olsen said a deed-restriction check required by the statute read in the transcript as "South Carolina code section 6 29 11 45" was not performed and said she found a deed restriction that prohibits uses involving "noxious and toxic fumes." Brandon Dunford warned a temporary occupancy permit "is built on illegal permits" if underlying zoning compliance did not occur.

Residents also raised health, water and tree-loss concerns. Stacy Armstrong cited particulate and NOx exposures from diesel backup generators and said the Environmental Protection Agency had recently allowed additional generator hours for certain nonemergency operations. Julie Ferraro and Allison Moses raised worries about power-grid capacity, water consumption for cooling systems and effects on tree growth.

Council discussion did not produce an immediate moratorium. One council member (on the public record at the meeting) urged staff to place "a request to vote on putting a pause to all permits for Silfab" on a future agenda so the issue could be reviewed publicly; the request itself was not a formal enacted ordinance or binding pause. The chair also reminded the audience that some zoning questions are the subject of pending circuit-court litigation and said staff can connect residents with the planning director for additional information.

The council did not take final action to revoke permits or to impose an immediate pause on work at the meeting. Councilors and residents asked staff for additional investigation and public follow-up; no timetable for that review was set by voice vote at the meeting.

What happens next: Council members asked staff to bring the matter back to a future public agenda for additional review. Several residents said they plan to continue legal efforts already noted on the record.