Silfab Solar site gets a new permit. It’s not what skeptics think, York County says

York County this week responded to online rumors and clarified it hasn’t permitted Silfab Solar to build its manufacturing facility in Fort Mill.

Interest remains high at the Silfab site, though it’s unclear what will happen at the controversial manufacturing property after the county Board of Zoning Appeals decided solar panel manufacturing shouldn’t be allowed in light industrial areas. This week, the county issued a statement because of questions that arose after a permit related to the Silfab project was approved May 14.

“This is a permit to alter the design of a parking lot and relocate utilities, and nothing more,” the county said. “It is not a permit for construction of a solar cell facility.”

Hundreds of community members packed out York County Council chambers May 9 for a county Board of Zoning Appeals hearing. Most of them celebrated the board’s decision — that solar panel manufacturing should be a heavy industrial use and thus not allowed at 7149 Logistics Lane in Fort Mill.

The more recent questions from the same protesters came after Silfab submitted a stormwater construction permit to realign the parking lot and underground utilities, according to the county. It was approved and sent to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. The May 14 decision was an approval by the state agency of a permit reviewed by the county before the zoning appeals board decision.

Zoning rules still limit Silfab’s ability to operate at the site, and the latest permit isn’t related to zoning, according to the county.

In surprise move, zoning board upends plans for $150M York County solar panel site

So what’s next at Silfab site?

Silfab this week announced a $5 million U.S. Department of Energy award on its website that references its “new South Carolina facility.” The release mentions a $20 million project at the site with zoning problems. It also describes the new factory as adding 1 gigawatt of cell production and 1.3 gigawatts of module production.

But beyond the county statement and company release, details are sparse about what’s next. The county declined further comment.

Silfab issued a statement May 10 expressing disappointment in the county decision.

“We are reviewing the community comments from the public forum and are waiting for an official letter of determination,” it reads. “This was not a final determination, and we are exploring the various options that will lead to a resolution.”

York County has several options for property owners whose zoning doesn’t allow for certain land uses. They can request rezoning. There are variances, too. But those options require public hearings and numerous votes. In Silfab’s case, it could look for another site that already has the zoning designation it needs.

County permit records show the Silfab site has three construction permits and one zoning permit in addition to the stormwater one recently approved by the state. All those are complete.

There is an open permit request for upfitting of the Silfab site. It mentions the addition of a clean room for solar panel manufacturing, three buildings on the northern part of the property for manufacturing and bulk gas storage on the northern part of the existing building.

The upfit request was issued in February and is listed as under review. A sign permit associated with it is listed as not approved. The parking lot and utility permit finalized by the state also is part of that upfit permit listing.

Why are people opposed to Silfab site?

Objections to the Silfab site largely focus on its proximity to two new Fort Mill schools under construction and the potential for dangerous chemicals to be used at the facility. The company contends it doesn’t create hazardous waste.

But resident pushback began almost immediately after the company promised 800 jobs with a request for tax incentives last year, which were granted. The two York County Council members whose districts are closest to the site voted against the first reading of that the tax incentive deal last year after numerous property owners spoke out against it.

An online group called Stop Silfab Solar has more than 650 followers. That group posted plans for a rally on neighboring property in early June.