Residents urge pause on Silfab, QTS projects, citing health, zoning and transparency concerns
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Dozens of York County residents told the council their neighborhoods are threatened by a Silfab solar manufacturing plant and an expanding QTS data center, citing health risks, noisy construction, alleged permitting inconsistencies and a lack of transparency; speakers asked for independent health studies and stricter zoning enforcement.
Dozens of residents urged York County Council to halt or more thoroughly review large industrial projects near homes and schools, telling the council at public forum that a Silfab solar cell manufacturing facility and a planned QTS data center threaten public health, safety and neighborhood character.
The residents’ statements, delivered during the council’s public forum, focused on proximity to homes and schools, potential air emissions and long-term health impacts. "There is no level of emergency readiness that will be able to protect the children in the school right next to Silfab when an accident occurs," said Eleanor Worth, who said she lives six-tenths of a mile from the Silfab site and described worries about acid-scrubber emissions and respiratory effects. "You are harming Fort Mill," she added.
The plea for independent review was echoed across multiple speakers. "If this project is truly safe, then an independent comprehensive health impact assessment should not be controversial. It should be expected," said Rebecca Sichy, who identified herself as coordinating with York County Citizens for Responsible Growth. Steve Penland, whose farm borders the planned QTS expansion on Parham Road, told the council that he found public records showing QTS purchased roughly 400 adjacent acres for about $26,000,000 and that a preliminary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers site plan showed space for nine additional buildings — details that residents said were not disclosed at earlier public meetings.
Several speakers also alleged permitting or zoning irregularities. "Weeks later, the county said the ruling did not apply to Silfab," Eleanor Worth said, referring to an earlier Board of Zoning Appeals ruling she said found solar manufacturing not allowed in a light industrial zone. Frank Jernick, a retired engineer, asked whether the county had fully examined permitting and zoning and said he did not believe the public has been given complete facts.
County officials and staff were not the primary respondents in the public forum exchange recorded in the transcript; however, during later council remarks a member encouraged the public to review the county's QTS FAQ posted online and thanked staff for preparing it. "I just encourage the public to go online, go to the county's website, and look at the FAQ associated with QTS because that will answer some of the questions that you may not be aware of based on the comments that were shared tonight," said a council member (speaker 29).
Why this matters: residents described schools, seniors and families living adjacent to the proposed projects and pressed the council to prioritize health and compatibility over projected revenues. Multiple speakers asked the council to require independent health-impact studies and clearer disclosures from developers before allowing further expansion or rezoning.
The next steps noted in the meeting: the council did not take direct action on those project approvals during the public forum; it has posted a QTS FAQ on the county website, and residents signaled they will continue to press the council at upcoming public hearings. The transcript records calls by the public for additional studies and for staff to provide clearer documentation of permits, Corps correspondence and site plans.