Written by Timothy J. Hegarty, A Concerned Citizen of York County:
As a concerned citizen, I have tracked the Silfab Solar issue very closely in the last two years since I first became aware of it. I think it is fair to say that I am very well acquainted with the specific details of this issue. While there have been many perplexing opinions, statements, and events that have occurred in this attempt to justify an unlawful development, there are two that are especially conspicuous to me.
The first one has to do with comments from elected officials and York County staff that Silfab has somehow been granted a development right, which I will address in the following paragraphs. The second one has to do with the fact that Silfab Solar has been allowed to file a legal appeal (June 28, 2024) in our court system to challenge the May 9, 2024, Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) ruling that they claim “aggrieved” them in some way. This one is particularly perplexing for two reasons: (1) York County has ignored the lawful BZA ruling and began issuing permits to Silfab the very next month (June 2024) under which Silfab immediately started (and remains under) construction; (2) the 16th Circuit Court granted Silfab’s right to appeal on December 18, 2024, the result of which has been to continue to allow Silfab an unfettered period of construction since June, 2024 through today. This will be addressed in more detail later in this article.
Now, back to the topic of the granting of development rights. You may have heard of the December 27, 2022, letter issued by York County Zoning Technician Emily Stephens to Judi Quinby Ref: Zoning Verification for 7190000201. This letter was in response to a request by Ms. Quinby to York County Planning and Development Services and states: “This letter is written to inform you that the laws and regulations of York County, SC govern the referenced property, tax map parcel 7190000201…The property zoned (sic) Light Industrial District (LI).
This zoning letter has been represented to the citizens of York County as granting a development right to Silfab Solar (see June 25, 2024, York County Mgmt. Statement on Silfab Solar). This is very interesting for several reasons. First, Silfab Solar is not mentioned anywhere in this December 27, 2022, letter. Next, simply ask Google or your favorite search engine the following question: (Q) “Are any development rights granted by a Zoning Verification Letter in York County, SC?” and you will receive the following, or very similar answer; (A) “Zoning Verification Letters in York County, SC do not grant any development rights (emphasis added). They serve as official confirmation of a property’s zoning classification, permitted uses, and any existing variances. These letters are essential for property transactions, development planning, financing, and legal compliance. They help avoid costly violations or delays by confirming zoning designations, overlays, and prior approvals”.
Some people reading this may be inclined to label me an “internet researcher” in a derogatory sense because I included the above online reference. However, I already knew that answer based upon 20+ years of commercial development experience. I provided the online reference simply to allow the reader to confirm this for themselves. Don’t you find it odd that the York County Planning and Development Services staff would attempt to say otherwise?
Another significant opposing point to this thought of development rights in the case of Silfab Solar is Sherman v. Reavis (S.C. Sup. Ct. 1979), in which a developer received a permit from a zoning administrator. Later, the permit was determined to have been issued in violation of zoning ordinances. The developer argued that he had “vested rights” to proceed because the permit had already been issued. The South Carolina Supreme Court disagreed, holding that: “There can be no vested rights in an invalid permit. A building permit issued in violation of the zoning ordinance is void, and construction under such permit may be enjoined”.
Let’s move on to the second conspicuously perplexing event referenced earlier in paragraph two, that being the fact that Silfab Solar has been allowed to file a legal appeal in our court system to challenge the May 9, 2024, Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) ruling that they claim “aggrieved” them in some way. As you may recall, it was also earlier stated in paragraph two that “York County has ignored the lawful BZA ruling and began issuing permits to Silfab the very next month (June 2024) under which Silfab immediately started (and remains under) construction”. To date, Silfab has not articulated to the Court exactly how they have been aggrieved, given that York County ignored its own BZA and began issuing permits the very next month. Also, to date, the BZA ruling has had no negative effect upon Silfab’s ability to construct their facility. Silfab has accepted and acted upon the permits issued, yet is brazen enough to claim to be aggrieved by the BZA decision that York County ignored on their behalf? Doesn’t this seem very much like “double dipping”?
How can this be? The answer is that it can’t be both ways. Given that the Court has agreed to hear Silfab’s appeal (eventually) then that can only mean that the BZA ruling stands as the current lawful ruling, right? It only makes sense that the Court would not waste its time hearing an appeal on a case that didn’t apply to Silfab. So, if the appeal is valid, then the BZA ruling is valid, and the permit(s) issued in violation of the zoning ordinance are void as per Sherman v. Reavis.
To add insult to injury for the Citizens in this implausible situation, Silfab claims to have been aggrieved but has been under construction and is nearing completion, having been assisted in this endeavor by elected officials, York County staff, and the yet to be articulated reason why the Court has granted Silfab’s motion for an appeal. The only aggrieved parties in this situation are the Citizens of York County, specifically Fort Mill residents, and the students and parents of the children assigned to the Flint Hill schools.
Respectfully,
Timothy J. Hegarty
Concerned York County Citizen
Proud American
SCPIF is not directly affiliated with the litigation of this issue