07/23/2026
🚨 The legal fiction protecting Silfab just collapsed.
For over 2 years, York County and Silfab told the public that the BZA ruling somehow did not apply to Silfab, did not affect Silfab, and could be ignored while the factory began receiving all their permits.
Yesterday, a South Carolina Circuit Court judge destroyed that narrative.
Judge William A. McKinnon affirmed the BZA “in all respects.” He confirmed that the 2022 zoning technician opinion held no legal weight. He confirmed that the case arose from Silfab’s proposed facility. He confirmed that the ruling has a “concrete effect.” He confirmed that a FILOT tax deal does not amend the zoning code.
Unfortunately, yesterday after the ruling was issued, both Silfab and York County issued similarly false and unlawful statements, claiming the ruling "does not apply to Silfab".
Before you believe those lies, I'd encourage you to read the 3 legally binding documents (linked in the comments below) that destroy that narrative - #1 Yesterday's ruling by Judge McKinnon, #2 SPG vs NP SPG FINAL AWARD OF ARBITRATOR and #3 The SC Planning Enabling Act of 1994.
#1 From the ruling:
📜 "On December 27, 2022, a York County zoning technician issued a “zoning verification letter” to a third-party diligence firm. (R. 811.) That letter stated that the property was zoned LI and that the manufacturing of photovoltaic cells and modules was “considered Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing,” a different defined use category. (R. 811.) The verification letter expressly stated on its face: “This letter does not constitute a permit.” (R. 811.) The verification letter was not a formal Zoning Code Interpretation under §§ 155.1090–.1096" (Judge McKinnon ruling, pg 3)
📜 "The record contains an excerpt of Silfab’s Construction Air Permit Application disclosing the use of hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, potassium hydroxide, and silane (R. 750–758, 763), the projected emission of hydrogen fluoride at substantial percentages of rural and urban thresholds (R. 755), and the contemporaneously increased stack height of the acid-scrubber stack from 19.7 feet to 70 feet (R. 755). CDC information in the record describes hydrogen fluoride as a substance that “can irritate the eyes, nose, and respiratory tract” and that “can cause death from an irregular heartbeat or from fluid buildup in the lungs.” (R. 765.) The Code’s own point of contrast was also before the Board. Section 155.1301 defines heavy industrial use as manufacturing “by means that ordinarily have greater than average impacts on the use and enjoyment of adjacent property in terms of noise, fumes, odors, glare, health, and safety hazards.” And the purpose provision of the LI district states that the district’s “less intensive uses protect nearby residential areas from the encroachment of heavy industrial uses.” § 155.041(A)(2). The Board heard testimony walking through these provisions (R. 883, 888, 890), including testimony that hydrogen fluoride is a “category three air pollutant” under the applicable DHEC classification, a category defined by pollutants “which can cause chronic effects resulting in death or permanent injury after very short exposure to small amounts” (R. 880–881), and that silane, stored on site in compressed form, can “ignite spontaneously in air” (R. 881)." (Judge McKinnon ruling, pg 8 )
📜 "Silfab participated in the BZA hearing as an “interested party.” (R. 813.) When the BZA reversed the Interpretation, Appellants invoked the appeal and mediation provisions of § 6-29-825, a procedure that is available only after a binding BZA decision affecting property rights. The Court declines to permit Appellants to invoke those procedures while simultaneously contending that no appealable decision exists." (Judge McKinnon ruling, pg 16)
📜 "Mr. Buchanan’s interpretation request and appeal arose from, and the record evidence concerned, the solar panel manufacturing facility under construction on the parcel adjacent to his property. (R. 742–743, 750–758, 811.) A use classification for the district in which the adjacent parcel sits determines what may lawfully occur next to Mr. Buchanan’s property. Its generic form does not diminish its concrete effect." (Judge McKinnon ruling, pg 17)
📜 "a fee-in-lieu agreement and its enabling ordinance are tax-incentive instruments adopted under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-44-10 et seq. They do not amend the Zoning Code. Zoning amendments require compliance with separate statutory procedures under S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-760, including public notice and planning commission review." (Judge McKinnon ruling, pg 18)
📜 "The decision of the York County Board of Zoning Appeals dated May 30, 2024 is AFFIRMED in all respects." (Judge McKinnon ruling, pg 19)
#2 From SPG vs NP SPG FINAL AWARD OF ARBITRATOR:
📜 "[Finding of Fact]...on March 1, 2024 Silfab sent NP’s proposal to SPG with directions for SPG to use NP as a subcontractor....In May 2024, the project was delayed by issues with the County Zoning Board. Permits had not yet been issued because the permit drawings were not complete but SPG, NP and DSI continued their work on engineering and supplying materials...SPG filed its Notice of Project Commencement on August 7, 2024. Permits were issued in September and SPG applied epoxy to the concrete slab..."
#3 From the SC Planning Enabling Act of 1994:
📜 SC Code § 6-29-800(A)(1):"...the board [board of zoning appeals] has all the powers of the administrative official from whom the appeal is taken..."
📜 SC Code § 6-29-950(A): "...No permit may be issued or approved unless the requirements of this chapter or any ordinance adopted pursuant to it are complied with..."
🔎 Let’s be unmistakably clear about what these documents prove: All of Silfab's permits were issued after the May 30th 2024 BZA ruling, which ruled against their proposed use. Under South Carolina state law, all of Silfab's building permits are legally void and their current operations are unlawful.
York County now has actual notice.
Every day the county refuses to act is another day it knowingly allows a prohibited use to continue next to our schools, homes, and families.
York County must revoke Silfab’s permits, suspend the CO, and issue a cease and desist immediately.
No more spin.
No more hiding behind “prospective only.”
No more pretending a tax deal rewrote zoning law.
Shut it down today.
