Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Silfab Chemical Incidents topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge York County to revoke Silfab Solar certificate of occupancy after chemical releases
Summary
Dozens of residents told York County Council on March 16 that two recent chemical releases at the Silfab Solar facility near Flint Hill schools showed the operation is incompatible with nearby neighborhoods and schools and urged county leaders to revoke the company's certificate of occupancy and enforce zoning rules.
Hundreds of residents filled the York County Council chamber on March 16 and urged elected leaders to revoke the certificate of occupancy for the Silfab Solar facility after two chemical incidents earlier this month.
Rachel Cox, a Fort Mill parent whose child attends Flint Hill Elementary, described waiting in a reunification line on March 5 and said she was "anxious and terrified" while county and school officials worked to reunite students after a chemical release. "Silfab is negligent," she said, arguing the company failed to report a leak and that parents and school staff had to act to protect children.
Jamie Castillia, who addressed the council during the public forum, told members a certificate of occupancy only confirms building safety—not whether a use is allowed under zoning—and argued the county issued underlying permits without required zoning compliance. "When the foundational permits for a project are legally questionable, the certificate of occupancy that follows cannot stand on solid ground," Castillia said, calling for the CO to be revoked.
Britney Gilner, who cited specific sections of the York County Zoning Code, said the county used a "zoning verification" document that is not defined in the code and is not appealable. "Silfab never received a zoning compliance approval," Gilner said, adding that the Board of Zoning Appeals has authority to review and that the BZA had earlier ruled parts of the project out of compliance.
John Worth, another public speaker, described the March incidents in technical terms and said the most dangerous chemicals were not involved this time, but warned "next time could be a disaster." Multiple speakers repeated calls for county action and for the county to enforce its zoning ordinance rather than relying on post-hoc explanations.
Officials and parents repeatedly said the Fort Mill School District, which represents thousands of students and staff, had issued a resolution asking state and local leaders to act after two chemical releases, and that the state Attorney General had said county council has authority to revoke a certificate of occupancy if it was issued improperly. Several residents urged the council to use that authority.
Council members did not take immediate action to revoke the certificate during the public forum. The meeting record shows the council accepted public comment and later moved on to its advertised agenda items. Residents said they expect council to follow up.
What's next: Residents asked the council to pursue formal options including a revocation of the certificate of occupancy, referral to the county attorney for legal review, and coordination with state regulators. Several speakers also encouraged the council to clarify whether county staff used the proper appealable zoning process before allowing Silfab to begin operations.
Reporting note: Quotes and legal citations above are drawn from the public-forum record presented to council on March 16. Where the transcript cited York County zoning sections, the article reports the speakers' claims about those sections rather than independently verifying those legal interpretations.
