Author: Staff

Court Dismisses Citizen Lawsuit, Questions Remain About Proper Permitting Process On January 21, 2026, Judge G.D. Morgan Jr. issued an order dismissing a lawsuit brought by Dennis Floyd Bivins against York County and several of its officials regarding the Silfab Solar manufacturing facility in Fort Mill, South Carolina. The 22-page order, which was likely more than necessary for an order of this sort, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that Bivins lacked standing to challenge the project and failed to state valid claims. However, a closer examination of the court’s reasoning alongside York County’s own zoning procedures reveals significant concerns about whether proper processes were followed.[1] The Court’s Decision Judge Morgan’s order addressed a lawsuit challenging York County’s approval of Silfab Solar’s manufacturing operations at 7149 Logistics Lane. Bivins, a neighboring property owner, sought declaratory relief, injunctions, and writs of mandamus and prohibition to halt the project, arguing that the county had issued permits without proper zoning compliance approval. The court dismissed the case...

Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity President Andy Lytle speaks at the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 9, 2024. Written by John Lee, a Move Silfab contributor In June 2024, York County issued a public “Management Statement” assuring residents that concerns about the Silfab Solar facility were based on “misinformation,” and that the Board of Zoning Appeals’ (BZA) May 9 decision was narrow, generic, and did not apply to Silfab’s project. But in a sworn court filing submitted on December 22, 2025 by the same BZA, the Board explicitly states that the zoning interpretation was binding, enforceable, site-specific, and directly applicable to Silfab’s facility. Both declarations simply cannot be true. The June 25, 2024 management statement made three core claims: 1.  “The decision by the BZA on May 9th did not apply to Silfab” 2.  “The BZA decision on May 9th applies only to future projects in the light industrial district.” 3. An advisory zoning verification letter written by a zoning technician “gave Silfab the legal...

Silfab Solar's solar panel manufacturing facility is located next to two schools at 7149 Logistics Lane in Fort Mill, SC. Why did Silfab do this? Written by Timothy J. Hegarty, A Concerned Citizen of York County: There has always been a fundamental question lurking in the background of the Move Silfab campaign that has gone unanswered all this time. As an active supporter of this campaign, I can recall that this question was considered very early on in the group and has been asked repeatedly throughout this journey. That question is “Why 7149 Logistics Lane in the Town of Fort Mill?” Why this location?  We will come back to this question. In addition, we learned very early on that the location was zoned Light Industrial, which did not permit the proposed solar cell manufacturing use. Therefore, we chose to focus on the unlawful use presented by this zoning issue. Supporters of Silfab Solar at its proposed location, 7149 Logistics Lane, have consistently attempted...

As a kid, do you remember when your dad gave you an allowance and said, 'This is all you are getting, so make it last'? A simple command to follow, and for the most part, you did as you were told. This rationale clearly does not apply to South Carolina’s treatment of its fiscal responsibilities. Enacted in 1979 through Act No. 199, Part II, Section 8 (codified as Section 2-7-65), zero-based budgeting was designed to prevent unchecked spending growth by requiring agencies to justify every dollar from scratch each year. For nearly 30 years, this law served South Carolinians well, promoting efficiency and protecting taxpayer dollars. However, since 2009—amid the Great Recession—elected officials have ignored this mandate, reverting to incremental budgeting that justifies only new spending. This failure has allowed the state budget to balloon exponentially, eroding public trust and burdening future generations with unsustainable debt and taxes. Proof of Exponential Budget Growth Due to Non-Adherence (Since 2008) The unchecked growth in...

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...

Written by Timothy J. Hegarty, A Concerned Citizen of York County: A very simple dictionary definition of “bias” is “an inclination or preference for or against an individual or group that interferes with impartial judgment “. Remember this statement, as it will relate to the story below. If you’ve read the previously posted “Damn the Citizens, Full Speed Ahead! in York County” article, then you have a thorough understanding of many of the actions and/or inactions that have contributed to the attempt to foist the Silfab Solar chemical manufacturing facility onto the citizens of Fort Mill. What you may not know is that the Fort Mill School Board (FMSB) and District have played a passive role to date in allowing this to happen. The Fort Mill School District (FMSD) is, without a doubt, the most influential adjoining property owner to the Silfab Solar location and may share the largest common property line. In their capacity as an adjoining, thereby aggrieved, property owner, the...

Written by Timothy J. Hegarty, A Concerned Citizen of York County: When Admiral David Farragut shouted, “Damn the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead!” at the Battle of Mobile Bay in August 1864, it was viewed as a bold, reckless statement in the face of overwhelming odds. Fast forward to today, and with slight editing, the statement very much applies to the Silfab Solar production facility in Fort Mill, SC, specifically the reckless part. Silfab Solar plans to manufacture solar cells and solar modules, which involve the use of extremely hazardous chemicals. It started out as “bold”. The Biden administration introduced the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which did nothing of the sort. What it did was earmark billions of dollars in incentives and tax credits to boost solar production within the US. It’s been referred to as reshoring solar production because 50 years ago, the US was the leading solar energy producer in the world. Not so today. It was “overwhelming odds” because we’ve been...

Photograph from CAGI History of the Issue Zoning issues have broad implications for the health and safety of nearby citizens. Silfab Solar is constructing a solar panel manufacturing plant in Fort Mill, South Carolina directly off Highway 21 near the I-77 interchange and surrounded by residential housing and adjacent to two public schools. The facility is being built in an area zoned as “Light Industrial” by the York County Zoning Department sparking significant controversy whether such an operation is appropriate for the location. The Rockefeller Group originally purchased the vacant building for $9 million. It now has a real estate deal in place to sell the building for $106 million to Exeter, with Silfab as the tenant. In December 2022, a York County zoning technician, not the Zoning Administrator, issued a letter stating that Silfab’s production may be permitted in the Light Industrial zone. The letter stated, the use described in your request (manufacturing of photovoltaic cells and PV modules) is considered electrical...

Written by: Laird Minor, Eamon Flynn The Lawsuit A suit was brought against Clemson University over its “life trustees” serving on their board of trustees. NOLAS Trading Co. and John Sloan, taking over from his father, Ned Sloan, brought suit against Clemson over these trustees. Plaintiffs argued that these trustees violated the South Carolina Constitution of 1895, which states that no public officer, other than officers of the militia or notaries public, can serve for life or for good behavior. Thomas Clemson’s will states, “The university shall be under the management and control of a board of thirteen trustees, composed of the seven members nominated by the will and their successors, and six members to be elected by the General Assembly in joint assembly.” The will was accepted by the State legislature in 1894, a year before it adopted the South Carolina Constitution of 1895, which prohibits the appointment of public officers, such as the life trustees mentioned in the will. Clemson defended the...

In Oconee County, South Carolina, there’s something in the water–taxation. In the fall of 2023, the county issued $25 million in bonds to fund wastewater and sewer treatment for an area near Interstate I-85, but it only benefits part of the county. When the bond proposal was first discussed during County Council meetings, several citizens took issue with the idea and attempted to engage the council to express their concerns.  With no firm budget being presented on how the bond monies would be spent, the group publicly called for a town hall meeting to discuss the issues and question the legality of the proposal.  That offer was firmly rejected, and the county quickly moved to secure the bond amidst public opposition.  The public learned shortly after that the bond was secured, and the monies were to be spent on sewer expansion.  It was then that the citizens approached SCPIF for legal help. Knowing this was a blatant violation of the clear...