Written by: Tim Hegarty, VP, Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI), and concerned Fort Mill resident
SCPIF is not directly affiliated with the litigation of this issue
As you may be aware, the Silfab Solar chemical manufacturing facility operating in Fort Mill, SC has been appealed by an adjacent property owner and the public as being unlawful per the York County Zoning Code of Ordinances in its current Light Industrial (LI) zoned location. This appeal has been proven to be correct multiple times beginning with the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) unanimous ruling issued on May 30, 2024, stating that solar cell manufacturing was prohibited in Light Industrial zoned locations. That decision was subsequently upheld by Circuit Court Judge William A. McKinnon in his first ruling issued on July 21, 2026, to which Silfab Solar promptly motioned for reconsideration. Judge McKinnon later reaffirmed that ruling on August 28, 2026, after hearing Silfab’s motion. If you are keeping count, as I am, that makes FOUR times this development has been proven to be unlawful if you add the three rulings above to the fact that the standing York County Zoning laws stated it to be unlawful in the first place! Yet Silfab Solar continues to operate at this location.
Following two chemical spills in early March 2026, SC Department of Environmental Services (DES) ordered a halt to Silfab’s manufacture using “regulated chemicals”. This restriction was in place at the time York County (YC) issued a statement following Judge McKinnon’s first ruling in which YC stated that no chemical manufacturing using hazardous chemicals was to occur at the facility pending the results of the motion to reconsider. As we know, Judge McKinnon simply reaffirmed his first ruling on August 27, 2026: no change whatsoever. YC did not issue a statement following this reaffirmation so it can be assumed that YC’s position should have remained the same as well, that being no chemical manufacturing unless the issue is resolved. After all, the law had provided FOUR times that the operation was unlawful so how could Silfab Solar be allowed to proceed with an unlawful activity?
Yet, on September 30, 2026, Silfab Solar publicly announced its intention to resume full manufacturing operations, which includes the use of hazardous chemicals, on or about October 19, 2026. Very shortly thereafter, YC issued a statement saying that it does not have authority over Silfab’s use or storage of chemicals, an obvious indication that they planned to take no action. Wait…what?
Fast forward to the York County Council meeting on Monday night, October 5, 2026. During the Public Forum section of this meeting, the first four speakers addressed Council regarding this issue and demanded that they enforce the law so explicitly pointed out for them. I was the fourth speaker, and I chose to use historical references to point out their duty to enforce the law. I reminded them that Thomas Jefferson warned that “The execution of the laws is more important than the making of them”; and that Abraham Lincoln demanded absolute obedience to the rule of law and cautioned that an unenforced law was a betrayal of public trust. We demanded that the Council execute the law without FEAR or FAVOR.
Following the Public Forum section, Councilperson Tom Audette made a motion to suspend the regular meeting agenda to allow the Council to enter Executive Session to discuss and address these issues voiced by the citizens. Councilperson Debi Cloninger seconded the motion advising that the new information that Silfab intended to resume full operation was an imminent concern. Councilperson Andy Litton advised that he opposed the motion essentially because the pressing current business of the agenda was more important than addressing these ongoing citizen concerns. Councilperson William Roddey agreed with Mr. Litten that the issue could be discussed later in Executive Session so as not to disrupt the important business before the Council. Council Chairperson Christi Cox stated that she agreed with Mr. Litten and Mr. Roddey and called for a vote. The motion was rejected with Mr. Audette and Ms. Cloninger voting Yea and Ms. Cox, Mr. Litten and Mr. Roddey voting Nay. I was present in the room at the time and heard no audible vote provided by Councilperson Adkins or Councilperson Huckabee so assume the vote was 3 Nay, 2 Yea and 2 abstentions. The Council meeting resumed its agenda.
Shortly thereafter, Rezoning Action 26-30 was addressed in which a property owner in a rural part of York County requested to expand the allowed uses of the existing gas station to include liquor sales. When asked if anyone in the room opposed the action, one neighboring resident spoke up to object. Then, the same resident that brought the Silfab Solar BZA Appeal forward stepped up to object on the grounds that York County did not need anymore liquor stores. He also objected on the grounds that the Council was inconsistent in its decisions considering Rezoning Actions. He then went on to express his outrage at the Council for daring to state that the Silfab issue was not important enough to disrupt the Council agenda when the Council’s actions regarding Silfab has disrupted his life for the last 2 ½ years. This man is a U.S. Army veteran, a retired Pastor and an upstanding citizen in the community. His action was out of character, but the emotion and the events, both prior to and at this meeting, were enough to provoke this uncharacteristic outburst. This fine man was willingly escorted out of Council chambers by a York County Deputy.
The Council meeting progressed per the agenda until approximately 8:30 PM when a motion was made to enter Executive Session. Several citizens remained in the chambers to hear the outcome of any discussions and decisions made by Councilmembers during Executive Session. The Council returned from Executive Session approximately 10:40 PM. Following a few routine statements made by Chairwoman Cox and Councilperson Audette, a closing statement was provided by Interim County Manager Jim Baker as follows:
“York County is unequivocally committed to following the law and respecting Judge McKinnon’s order. However, Judge McKinnon’s order did not specifically address how his decision impacts Silfab Solar’s existing operations that were approved before the BZA decision was made. In addition, the decision is stayed currently while on appeal. The County staff believes the BZA’s decision applies only prospectively. By promptly seeking a Declaratory Judgment the County will be asking the Court to resolve this issue.”
The citizens still present to hear this statement first hand were appalled as I am sure you, the reader, are equally appalled. Let’s dissect that statement:
- The first sentence is ludicrous as evidenced by the following sentence
- Second sentence:
(a): Judge McKinnon’s twice issued orders do not need to address the impact. The Council has been informed by the Court that the use is unlawful, York County is the entity that allowed Silfab to proceed in the first place, and York County Council has the authority to rescind the approvals issued for this unlawful activity as stated long ago by the SC Attorney General’s office and supported by common sense;
(b) Silfab Solar’s existing operations were in no way approved before the BZA decision was made. A FILOT agreement was approved, and a Zoning VERIFICATION Letter was issued prior to the BZA, neither of which meets the code requirements of an APPROVAL. To this day, a Zoning Compliance Approval, as required by the York County Zoning Code of Ordinances prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, has never been issued. Additionally, Silfab was not issued a Construction Permit until almost 30 days following the BZA ruling.
(c) Let’s assume that the third sentence is true as written. Even if it is, why does that allow Silfab to proceed with declared unlawful activities in the interim? If the decision is stayed, then the status quo should remain in place with no chemical manufacturing production allowed unless/until Judge McKinnon’s order is overruled. Once again, this is simple common sense. The use has been declared illegal and on top of that it presents the threat of imminent harm to 2,000 adjacent schoolchildren and over 53,000 in the surrounding 3 mile radius. The onus of resuming full production using hazardous chemicals should be on Silfab Solar, NOT the public and York County officials have the duty to protect their citizens.
(d) The fourth sentence is shameful and embarrassing to York County Council. They continue to choose political comfort over constitutional duty to the citizens. They continue to FAVOR the operations of a foreign corporation conducting unlawful activities. They continue to FEAR the baseless threat of a liability lawsuit from Silfab Solar even when they are aware that SC law and the Tort Claims Act indemnifies the County against such a lawsuit. Also, Silfab Solar CEO Paolo Maccario is on video record touting to their investors that they sold the $145MM in U.S. Government tax credits they were issued (with no strings attached) for a cash value of $110MM to fund the construction of their Fort Mill solar facility. What court in the land would award damages to Silfab Solar for spending US taxpayer dollars?! Lastly, even if there is a real threat of a liability suit, and even if YC was found liable, no amount of money is relevant given the consideration of imminent harm to thousands of schoolchildren and citizens.
The above information should be more than adequate to help the average person fully understand why York County officials’ failure to act on behalf of its citizens defies belief.
Now to move on to the “Better Angels of Our Nature” referenced in the title. Earlier in the article a reference was made to Abraham Lincoln’s stated position on obedience to the rule of law. Continuing the Abraham Lincoln connection, the “Better Angels” statement also refers to Lincoln. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln used the phrase “the better angels of our nature” as an emotional plea to the American people to avoid civil war, urging them to look to their shared history and bonds of affection rather than letting anger tear them apart. I believe that plea is applicable as paraphrased here:
“We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory…will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
Please God…let the better angels of our nature prevail…