Residents urge York County Council to pause Silfab permits amid zoning litigation
Loading...
Summary
Multiple residents told York County Council on Feb. 2 that permits and certificates of occupancy for the Silfab project should be paused until zoning litigation is resolved, citing an alleged Board of Zoning Appeals ruling, potential chemical hazards near schools, and inconsistent county statements about whether zoning was approved.
Dozens of residents told the York County Council on Feb. 2 that the county should pause building permits and withhold certificates of occupancy for the proposed Silfab site while zoning litigation proceeds.
Jennifer Williams, a Saddlegate neighborhood resident, said York County code §30.04(b) requires that when two council members request an item it must appear on a future agenda and asked the council to “add this item to the public agenda and allow council to vote on pausing permits and withholding certificates of occupancy for the Silfab project until zoning litigation is resolved.”
Several other speakers repeated that request and raised related legal and safety concerns. Amy Myers said the situation had worsened inequality in the neighborhood and noted “more than 1,000 students within 1 mile of the Silfab site qualify for free or reduced meals,” urging council to act. Michelle Fowler told the council the Board of Zoning Appeals ruled 5–0 that the operation is heavy industrial and not permitted in the property's light-industrial zoning, yet permits were issued regardless; she said independent analyses show “high hazard chemical classifications” near schools and asked the council to place a pause-of-permits vote on the agenda.
Other residents highlighted inconsistent county messaging. Luke Gildner said county court filings describe the Follett vote as having approved zoning, while in the meeting chamber staff said Follett concerned tax incentives only; “both of these statements cannot be true,” he said, arguing that one outcome would either deny required public notice and appeal rights or mean permits were issued without zoning approval.
Brandon Langford asked the council to “show us the law” allowing an inducement or tax-incentive vote to substitute for zoning approval, arguing that if such a rule cannot be shown, then permits must stop. Kate Hanover added that litigation does not remove council authority, urging a clear, lawful vote: “You can't say both those things,” she said of the conflicting statements about whether zoning was approved.
Council did not take formal action on Silfab during the Feb. 2 meeting. Several council members acknowledged the public comments and later agreed to follow up: at least one councilmember asked legal staff to report back on attorney fees spent on litigation and other members discussed examining notification practices for planning and economic-development matters.
The public record at the meeting included repeated calls for council to put a formal pause on permits and COs for Silfab until the zoning dispute is resolved; council members did not immediately adopt that request during the session.
