A Significant Setback to Silfab and York County Statements and Actions
The Silfab Solar cell chemical manufacturing and panel assembly plant on Logistics Lane in Fort Mill, SC just received a ruling issued by Circuit Court Judge William A. McKinnon on July 21, 2026, in the case Silfab vs. BZA.
This ruling is the result of a hearing on May 26, 2026, where oral arguments were presented by all parties to the appeal by Silfab regarding the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) May 30, 2024, final written decision. This decision unanimously reversed the York County Zoning Administrator’s interpretation that solar panel manufacturing is a permitted use in a Light Industrial (LI) district. Most importantly, the Court AFFIRMED the BZA’s decision in all aspects and rejected each of Silfab’s arguments.
This ruling affirms that the citizen’s two plus years of opposing this development in its current LI location is supported by legal facts in all regards. While the Circuit Court determination that the now existing Silfab facility in its current LI zoned location is unlawful for a multitude of reasons, the ruling itself does not force the closure of the facility. It does, however, clearly uphold that the issuing of building permits and a subsequent Certificate of Completion by York County is not in accordance with the standing York County Code of Ordinances as previously determined by the BZA. Such enforcement must come from action by the York County Council (YCC) to nullify the permits and revoke the operating certificate. In the absence of such action, then the State government and specifically the SC Attorney General’s office must take action to compel the YCC to enforce.
Both York County and Silfab have issued statements that Judge McKinnon’s ruling affirming the BZA decision does not apply to Silfab. According to them, it only applies “prospectively,” (meaning, only applies to future development) not to the actual case that initiated the BZA appeal in the first place. As the basis for this claim, they state the project had already received “approval” and was “well underway” at the time of the BZA appeal, neither of which is true.
In fact, the project was not “well underway”. It had not received proper zoning approvals, and received its first construction permit June 28, 2024, a more than a full month after the BZA issued its written ruling. Physical construction did not begin until after the first permit was unlawfully issued.
Further, the project did not receive all necessary approvals prior to the BZA ruling. Judge McKinnon’s ruling clearly rejects Silfab’s claim that YCC adoption of the Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) ordinance ratified “all prior actions taken with respect to Silfab’s Project”. In the ruling the Judge clearly states that “a fee-in-lieu agreement and its enabling ordinance are tax-incentive instruments adopted under S.C. Code…They do not amend the Zoning Code”.
Also very noteworthy is the fact that Judge McKinnon’s ruling states on Page 9 that “Third, the record affirmatively supports the BZA’s finding that the manufacturing process at issue is qualitatively distinct from the listed Computer and Electronic Products Manufacturing examples and is more consistent with heavy industrial activity than light”. The citizens have made this point loudly and repeatedly and supported it with a documented environmental hazard study completed by the USC Arnold School of Public Health (at citizens’ expense). This report was provided to York County officials and was essentially ignored.
Judge McKinnon’s ruling underscores that the Silfab facility in its current LI zoned location did not and does not meet published York County zoning requirements, just as the much earlier BZA ruling stated.
Silfab has since filed a motion to reconsider, which will be heard on August 26. In the meantime, Silfab is prohibited from manufacturing cells in its York County facility.
So now, it falls back to the York County Council to take the necessary action to undo what it has allowed to happen. Silfab is far from an innocent party initiating heavy industrial use under the radar of light industrial work. Silfab also knew that proceeding with construction was at their own risk given all permits were issued while the development was under litigation. While they succeeded in beginning operations before this issue could have its day in court, they should not be rewarded for poor decision-making. Zoning laws exist to protect the community and encourage responsible economic development.