|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Controversial solar panel manufacturer Silfab Solar faces community angst and legislative scrutiny as it prepares to begin operations at its new Fort Mill S.C. manufacturing facility. Homeowners near the plant have expressed concern that county officials are ignoring zoning requirements in issuing Silfab’s construction permit – endangering residents in the process.
The Canadian-based solar panel manufacturer operates two factories in Washington, with it’s Fort Mill location being it’s first planned photovoltaic cell manufacturing facility.
Solar cell manufacturing involves the use of potentially dangerous chemicals.
Silfab estimates it will bring 800 jobs to the region (starting at an hourly wage of $19). The company has been granted tax incentives by county officials looking to land its $150 million dollar investment.
***
***
While Silfab has secured a synthetic minor permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – and county officials have determined their manufacturing process meets requirements for the area’s light industrial zoning – parents and homeowners have vocally expressed concerns about the plant’s proximity to schools and neighborhoods.
Concerned residents pursued multiple avenues to attempt to halt construction.
“We went to the board of zoning appeals and got a unanimous decision,” Fort Mill resident Andy Lytle told FITSNews. “We thought it was over with.”
***
***
“Unfortunately, the county just decided to ignore the board of zoning appeals,” Lytle continued. “We can’t find a case anywhere in South Carolina ever where the county was in support of something that the board of zoning appeals was against, and so therefore, when it does ultimately appear before a judge, we feel like there’s no way a judge will ever set a precedent that would allow a county to ignore its BZA decision, because at that point, why would you even have a BZA?”
“After we realized they were going to ignore the board of zoning appeals, we tried to appeal the civil plan approval, which is a state law that gives us the right to appeal a civil plan approval, and they denied our right to do that,” Lytle explained.
Lytle then founded the Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI) in order to obtain an insurance policy and fund litigation to halt construction.
***
***
Silfab is currently involved in two legal disputes, one in which it is seeking a reversal of the board of zoning appeals decision – and a second brought by CAGI which seeks to halt construction of the plant.
S.C. circuit court judge Martha M. Rivers stayed CAGI’s suit pending the disposition of Silfab’s zoning board appeal. Attorneys representing York County, Silfab and CAGI must attempt to resolve the dispute in mediation before Rivers can set the case for trial.
“Silfab is just continuing construction because the county is letting them,” Lytle said when asked how Silfab has proceeded amid litigation that imperils its multi-million dollar investment.
Lytle, a professional engineer, detailed his concerns with some of the chemicals Silfab has indicated will be used at the Fort Mill facility.
***
***
“In those documents, you had three very concerning chemicals, one being silane which explodes when exposed to air,” Lytle explained. “It’s called a pyrophoric chemical. We found out they have the potential to have about 26,000 pounds of that.”
“The next two chemicals that we were concerned about in the beginning are hydrichloric and hydrofluoric (acids),” Lytle continued, referring to chemicals which will be stored in liquid form at the facility.
Lytle was most concerned about an accidental hydrofluoric release “it is a category three air pollutant, which is the highest danger category.”
“They have acid scrubbers that will scrub 96% of the acid, but those scrubbers are mechanical,” he said. “They do malfunction, so we’re concerned. What happens when the scrubbers malfunction and there’s children in the back of those two schools they’re building literally on the property line of the Silfab plant?”
***
***
“They are building an onsite wastewater treatment facility to treat the liquid waste that comes out of their process before it goes down the sewer line,” Lytle said, adding that the company’s “wastewater is so full of sludge, that they have to test the sludge before it gets hauled off by a certified trucking company going to a certified landfill.”
“They’re treating hazardous material in every form that it exists: gas, liquid and solid, by definition, that is absolutely not light industrial,” Lytle continued.
Lytle is absolutely correct on that score. York County’s zoning code explicitly excludes “hazardous material treatment and storage facilities, plating or enameling, or petroleum and gas refining” from its definition of light industrial facilities.
According to Lytle, he has no issue with the company or its leaders – just the proposed location of their new facility.
***
***
“I mean, honestly, I think they’re good people,” Lytle said of the Silfab’s management. “They invited me to lunch, and I gladly went with them. I told them I’m for solar energy, I’m for you being successful. I’d like to buy some of your panels and put them on my house. I just think you’re in the wrong spot.”
Dozens of other Fort Mill residents agree Silfab’s facility is being built in the wrong location, something they’ve voiced repeatedly at county council meetings – and something they’ve demonstrated by donating personal funds to cover CAGI’s legal fees.
Residents have also repeatedly reached out to state legislators seeking relief.
“This is a major issue for my constituents,” state representative David Martin said.
Martin is the sponsor of legislation (H. 4293) which would halt construction on projects rejected by zoning appeal boards during the pendency of litigation unless a judge were to order otherwise.
State senator Michael Johnson filed near-identical legislation (S. 530) in the upper chamber in early March, 2025.
“I hope we can get the bill to subcommittee early next year,” Johnson said.
***
***
“Many of my neighbors, people that I know, are putting their homes on the market because they’re concerned about the Silfab issue,” state representative Jackie Terribile said.
“If this is zoned for light industrial, but it sounds like the actual work they’re going to be doing is heavy industrial – then I think my concern, just like everyone else’s in the community, is why is that allowed?” Terribile asked.
“I give credit to representative Martin, he’s the one who filed the bill,” Terribile said. “We try to work together when it comes to matters having to do with Fort Mill. (We) both feel like we don’t want to add to the bureaucracy and red tape and we don’t want to step on local governments, but we’re trying to make sure that zoning is followed.”
“I absolutely believe in the free market, and I want to be able to bring businesses to Fort Mill, but we also have to make sure that we’re not doing it at the expense of the health of our community,” Terribile concluded.
***
Silfab argues the company has made a good faith effort to address concerns and mitigate risk.
A spokesperson for Silfab provided the following statement to FITSNews:
Although we had no obligation to do so, Silfab has diligently addressed the concerns from the community and made extensive changes to our plans at great expense and delay. While we believe these changes were unnecessary from a safety and environmental standpoint, we voluntarily made them in good faith to be responsive to the community and ease any lingering concerns, regardless of their validity. The changes include:
- Requested County Council to delay Third Reading for FILOT approval until DHEC air permit was received
- Increased frequency of monitoring beyond what is required by DES and the EPA
- Shortened the height of the wet scrubber
- Moved the wet scrubber and chemical storage to the farthest side of the building once the schools were approved after our zoning approval
- Increased reporting to state and federal organizations
- Created a website that is updated regularly with the facts and responses to community questions for transparency and ongoing communication
Even with all these changes to our plans, the target continues to move. When one concern is addressed, a new baseless accusation is introduced to the community. A small group is on a mission to spread false information and fear. This level of alarmism is not only irresponsible – it’s harmful to everyone involved. We are deeply concerned by their ongoing efforts and believe that, at this point, they are doing more harm to themselves, local taxpayers, and home values than helping Fort Mill.
***
Given both bills’ introduction late in the spring 2025 portion of the two-year 2025-26 legislative session, do not expect their passage prior to lawmakers looming departure from Columbia.
Count on FITSNews to continue to track Silfab and the attendant legal drama.
If you’d like to share information about this story email Dylan@FITSNews.com.
Also, if you’re passionate about this issue (from any perspective) please consider availing yourself of our “open mic policy” and submit a letter to the editor or guest column for publication.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
(Via: Travis Bell)
Dylan Nolan is the director of special projects at FITSNews. He graduated from the Darla Moore school of business in 2021 with an accounting degree. Got a tip or story idea for Dylan? Email him here. You can also engage him socially @DNolan2000.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
37 comments
Great article stating the truth that what Silfab plans to manufacture is not light industrial and not appropriately zoned. Silfab does not belong next to schools!
The blame isn’t on Silfab — it’s on the Fort Mill School District.
Silfab belongs in an industrial zone. It always has.
It was the school district that bought industrial land, then tried and failed to get schools grandfathered in after zoning changes.
When that failed, they pushed through a special zoning change so they could still build two schools in a Light Industrial area — an area that the county had already said schools didn’t belong in.
If the district hadn’t insisted on putting schools next to industry, there would be no conflict.
You’re upset there’s an industrial plant next to the schools? Of course there is — you’re in an industrial zone.
How does the schools being in a light industrial district have anything to do with Silfab wanting to conduct a heavy industrial use in a LI zone?
Schools don’t belong in industrial zones Brandon
Your a jackass
Bill, I think we need facts, not ad hominem. It’s an ineffective method of argumentation. Let’s debate, but throwing bricks at people is not going to help this situation.
You tell em Dick
Thank you for reporting our concerns. We will continue our quest to Move Silfab to an appropriate, heavy industrial zone.
That heavy vs light thing is legal nuance not a foregone conclusion. If you don’t want Silfab near you MOVE
It’s not a legal “nuance”, rather it’s a legal distinction and ~clear~ definition. First/second/third degree murder are not “nuanced” differences. They are legally defined distinctions.
The zoning ordinance SPECIFICALLY prohibits “hazardous material treatment and storage facilities….” The BZA ruling was crystal clear and unanimous. There is no nuance.
The York County Board of Zoning Appeals, an authoritative governing body of York County government, issued a unanimous ruling on May 9th, 2024 that Silfab Solar cannot operate in the Light Industrial-zoned building they leased in Fort Mill, as their manufacturing is Heavy Industrial. What possible reason can York County government have to continue issuing building permits to Silfab, breaking their own law? The 50,000+ lbs. of chemicals Silfab wants to use are many, flammable & combustible, stored in massive tanks. There would be two 50-ft. acid scrubber stacks emitting hazardous pollutants (the exact language used in Silfab’s application to SC DES) into the lungs of children playing on the adjacent football field and playground less than 1000 feet away. In addition, if there were an incident at Silfab, there is no way the local fire department would be able to get the 2700 children and staff out of the school buildings. A population of over 52,000 including 12 schools, businesses, daycare centers, retirement centers and Carowinds theme park are within the 3-mile evacuation zone. Whoever scouted this location for Silfab should be fired, as should any elected representatives or staff in the York County government who aid Silfab by issuing building permits.
Thank you for the honest coverage — the citizens and parents of Fort Mill simply want to see the right thing done by relocating Silfab.
Thank you for your honest and factual reporting! We are coming up on a year of fighting for the law to be upheld for our town and to keep our children, families, and community safe!
Thank you for this article. I’m not sure how Silfab can label everyone as crazies, when they’re violating the law on a daily basis. Their CEO is telling everyone about the saline they’re using…is he intentionally deceiving his audience, or does he not know it’s really the highly toxic SILANE?! So much corruption by this Canadian company (and I believe most of their VC’s are Chinese).
Can we talk about their water usage? Over one million gallons PER DAY, which is more than all of Tega Cay? I deeply worry about groundwater contamination, which is why we are opting to sell. Silfab needs to relocate to a properly zoned parcel.
I’m sure Lee Zeldin will get right on it HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thank you for article! Like it was mentioned earlier, our community does not want a heavy industrial plant in a light industrial zone next to residential areas and two schools. Silfab keeps saying a small group is spreading misinformation and fear, which is preposterous. The zoning committee said it is light industrial, which they are NOT. We are concerned citizens, period. Move it to another location away from a residential area. There is plenty of land in York County they could use. And what about the one million gallons of water a day they will also use for their factory?
You bunch o fucking whiny twats. Be mad at the school district. They were the ones who were granted the zoning changes so the schools could be built adjacent to Silfab. Not the other way around you dumb fucks. Schools were removed from light industrial in March of 2022. But Fort Hill WANTED those schools in that light industrial zone. This was always the plan. And now the district can lean back, smile, and watch all you dipshits attack Silfab like they’re the enemy. THE DISTRICT LET YOU DOWN YOU DICKNOSED KARENS! But I bet you don’t start singing that tune do ya?
Sounds like you’re disgruntled and your panties are all in a bunch. Name calling alone reflects your level of education and character. Hope you enjoy this most beautiful day….and cheers to hoping your blood doesn’t continue to boil and you’re able to find inner peace. Nothing but love to perspectives on the other side, and again, really hoping you’re able to calm down for your own health and mental well being.
There is blame to be shared across all parties. However, the root of this issue is that York County has refused to enforce their zoning ordinance, and has ignored the unanimous BZA ruling. That’s the “locomotive engine” driving down the tracks. The other train cars are simply following the lead of the “engine,” albeit voluntarily.
The blame isn’t on Silfab — it’s on the Fort Mill School District.
Silfab belongs in an industrial zone. It always has.
It was the school district that bought industrial land, then tried and failed to get schools grandfathered in after zoning changes.
When that failed, they pushed through a special zoning change so they could still build two schools in a Light Industrial area — an area that the county had already said schools didn’t belong in.
If the district hadn’t insisted on putting schools next to industry, there would be no conflict.
You’re upset there’s an industrial plant next to the schools? Of course there is — you’re in an industrial zone.
Andy Lytle’s campaign is built on fear, half-truths, and technical nonsense.
He is a misinformation peddling jacka$$. Professional engineer? I wouldn’t trust anything that man ever worked on.
Silane is a common gas in solar manufacturing, stored safely under strict codes. Acid scrubbers neutralize emissions just like they do at countless facilities across the country. Testing wastewater doesn’t mean it’s hazardous — it means it’s regulated and responsibly handled. Sludge is a normal part of most wastewater treatment systems.
Silfab is operating legally in an industrial zone — where industrial companies are supposed to be.
Meanwhile, Fort Mill School District ignored zoning laws, pushed two schools into an industrial zone after being told not to, and now pretends to be shocked there’s industry next door.
If you bought into Lytle’s alarmist nonsense, you’ve been misled.
The real mistake wasn’t Silfab building a factory — it was the school district building classrooms in the middle of an industrial area.
That whole light vs heavy thing – that’s legal nuance not a foregone conclusion. I hope they bleed CAGI dry. And for all the nimbys leaving Fort Mill – GOOD RIDDANCE!
“Fear” – not all fear is irrational.
“Half-truths” – it is built on sufficient truth. You cite the safe storage of Silane. What you don’t cite (your half-truths) are the multitudes of accidents involving Silane (a highly combustible gas, definitely NOT COMMON in Fort Mill LI zones, and definitely NOT COMMON adjacent to schools).
“Technical nonsense” – what “technical nonsense”? What specific misinformation is Andy peddling? Those are easily defended claims if what you say is true. Please provide your evidence.
Who said “testing wastewater is hazardous?” Most people do not understand what this facility will be doing, and even fewer understand that they are mostly self-monitoring.
“Silfab is operating in an industrial zone” — there are multiple degrees of “industrial” – Silfab is operating as “Heavy Industrial” (specific legal definition) in a “Light Industrial” (again, specific legal definition) zone. The permits are being issued by York County in defiance of their own York County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 155, page 557, and the unanimous ruling of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Once the BZA ruled, all further development should have stopped, per § 155.1095 SCOPE OF APPROVAL – “Any DEVELOPMENT [emphasis added] that occurs after the Zoning Code interpretation has been issued is subject to all applicable requirements of this Chapter, as revised by the interpretation.” It is important to note that the ordinance does not refer to the startup/continuance of a “project.” It says any “development.” Important legal distinction.
Regarding FMSD, they applied for rezoning before anyone knew what Silfab was going to be doing. Who told FMSD not to build there during the rezoning process? Silfab misrepresented their intentions to the public by claiming they were going to “assemble” solar panels. At that time, there was no discussion of massive storage tanks of highly combustible Silane, the storage and processing of massive amounts of highly toxic Hydrofluoric Acid, and the multitudes of other highly toxic chemicals.
Andy is not an “alarmist.” It’s called prudent, fact-based analysis. You can throw unsubstantiated shade all day long, but it does not minimize the hard facts of this issue. My suggestion is that you offer a FACT-based rebuttal. If everything you say is true, bring the receipts, friend. The fact is you have none.
You asked for receipts — here they are:
In December 2022, York County staff approved Silfab’s use as “computer and electronics manufacturing” under the Light Industrial (LI) zoning.
In May 2024, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) issued a unanimous decision against Silfab, classifying their use as heavy industrial.
In June 2024, Silfab successfully appealed the BZA ruling in circuit court — overturning the decision and clearing the way for construction.
Two cases are currently stayed pending mediation — CAGI’s lawsuit and Silfab’s original BZA appeal (which is now resolved).
Silfab also holds a Synthetic Minor Air Permit from DHEC and EPA oversight.
Construction is moving forward legally — not because of “ignoring” zoning, but because the BZA ruling was appealed and overturned. That’s the legal process working.
You wanted facts. There they are.
What you have presented as fact is completely untrue. Yes, Silfab did make application to appeal the BZE decision in June 2024 and requested mediation. Silfab provided no basis for appeal in their application. The neighbor who initiated the original BZA hearing, Mr. Buchanan, applied to participate in the mediation as an aggrieved party and was granted that standing. The appeal request languished along because Silfab did not respond with a basis for appeal.
CAGI then made two submittals to the Court: (1) a lawsuit; and (2) a motion to dismiss Silfab’s appeal on the basis of no action. These submittals resulted in a Court scheduled hearing on December 21, 2024. Following that hearing, the Court ruled to Stay the CAGI lawsuit and that the Silfab request for mediation proceed.
Mediation occurred on April 21, 2025 with the three interested parties: Silfab, the BZA and Mr. Buchanan. The results of that mediation were released this week as an Impasse. The matter now goes back to the Circuit Court for next steps.
Now back to June, 2024. For unknown reasons, York County officials decided to take the position that the BZA ruling did not apply to Silfab and began issuing permits. Silfab started construction under these unlawfully issued permits at their risk which is their right under SC State case law. Construction has continued for 10 months while the litigation process continues. To this day, the BZA ruling is the standing law in this matter and the Court has made no ruling to alter that decision.
It has been obvious since Silfab started construction that their plan was and remains to delay any Court proceedings while they expedite construction. I have said all along that “we do not lose this fight until Silfab manufactures a solar module at that facility”. I have said that because we do not know how the legal landscape changes once they are operating and we cannot afford to test that.
Silfab is clearly of that same opinion and hopes to get into production before this matter is settled in Court. That cannot and will not happen.
Here’s a fact check based on Andy’s direct quotes in this article:
Silane Storage:
Silane is a pyrophoric gas, but its use in solar manufacturing is standard and highly regulated. The “26,000 pounds” cited likely reflects a permit cap or annual throughput — not real-time storage. Storage is done via engineered cylinders and piping with built-in gas detection and emergency shutdown systems. Silfab holds a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit from DHEC, meaning their emissions are strictly capped.
Hydrofluoric Acid Danger:
EPA does not categorize pollutants as “Category Three.” Hydrofluoric acid is hazardous, but emissions are controlled under MACT and NESHAP standards. Silfab uses a wet scrubber system subject to DHEC and EPA oversight.
Scrubber Failure Risk:
Yes, scrubbers are mechanical — but permits require continuous monitoring and automatic shutdowns if critical limits are exceeded. Silfab voluntarily increased monitoring frequency beyond what’s legally required.
Wastewater Treatment:
Treating wastewater does not automatically classify a facility as handling hazardous waste. Silfab’s synthetic minor status means all emissions, discharges, and solid waste outputs must stay under federal and state hazardous material thresholds. Wastewater is pre-treated to meet local sewer standards.
Zoning Interpretation:
York County’s zoning excludes dedicated hazardous waste treatment facilities — not routine industrial chemical use with neutralization or emission control. In June 2024, the circuit court overturned the BZA decision and ruled Silfab’s operations permissible under LI zoning.
Bottom line: Silfab is proceeding legally under valid permits and court rulings. Facts matter.
Andy Lytle’s campaign is built on fear, half-truths, and technical nonsense.
He is hoping no one will actually check the facts.
The reality? Silane is a common gas in solar manufacturing, stored safely under strict codes. Acid scrubbers neutralize emissions just like they do at countless facilities across the country. Testing wastewater doesn’t mean it’s hazardous — it means it’s regulated and responsibly handled.
Silfab is operating legally in an industrial zone — where industrial companies are supposed to be.
Meanwhile, Fort Mill School District ignored zoning laws, pushed two schools into an industrial zone after being told not to, and now pretends to be shocked there’s industry next door.
If you bought into Lytle’s alarmist nonsense, you’ve been misled.
The real mistake wasn’t Silfab building a factory — it was the school district building classrooms in the middle of an industrial area.
Cool – another copy and paste comment
Well it looks like you can only comment if you’re in favor of Lytle. I suspect this is a CAGI backed article. Just more misinformation.
Your comment literally disproves your comment.
What misinformation is CAGI officially spreading on their website and in this article?
Hey Dick, we heard about that federal tax lien on your place to the tune of about $22k. Your every get that sorted mate?
This is great, honest article. Thank you so much for this coverage!
Great article. The reality is Silfab is a victim of York County. Fort Mill School District is allowing themselves to be a victim of York County. The Light Industrial district, surrounded by homes and schools was created for LIGHT industry, not a modeled to be a smidge below a Title V polluter type industrial use. Zoning is somewhat nuanced, and the deciding appellate board ruled on this nuance.
Ad hominem attacks and attempted intimidation of parents behind a keyboard with vulgarity as they try to protect their children and future generations of children from a potentially dangerous situation simply will not work. Why is it a good idea to put this next to schools? Why does their financial reward justify the risks thrust upon children?
The statements related to their zoning approvals are false, they have not even filed an application for zoning compliance. You cannot be approved for something you have yet to apply for. There were multiple avenues to secure this site legitimately, site specific development agreements and seeking vested rights through the planning commission were two of them. Now, however, Silfab must go to County Council to seek a rezoning or risk building a plant they cannot operate. It is what it is…
Uh, no
Thank you for this great report! Please keep following Silfab and the ongoing legal battle!
Thank you for presenting a true and factual article. Anyone who knows Andy Lytle knows he is a kind, caring and honest individual. He is also the most well informed and truthful authority on this issue. He has researched every aspect of this situation: zoning laws, solar cell production facts, lack of due process, Silfab misrepresentations, York County Council misrepresentations, the chemical properties and processes involved, the lack of precedent for ignoring a BZA ruling and the property transfers for both the Silfab facility and the adjacent schools. Andy presents only truth and facts and has dedicated the past two years to educating and protecting the Fort Mill community. Andy’s reputation in the community requires no defense from me or
anyone else. However, I will not condone a smear campaign against the most truthful and informed voice on this topic. Andy has earned and deserves our respect and thanks and the Fort Mill community knows that and appreciates him.
Thank you for your great coverage and please continue to follow this issue. Thanks!