Chemical Spills Bring Crisis to the Community’s Doorstep
One must question whether the Attorney General’s immediate inquiry and the release of the date for Silfab’s BZA appeal take on added urgency in light of the events that unfolded at the Silfab facility in the first week of March 2026.
On March 3, 2026, a spill of potassium hydroxide prompted a HAZMAT response and drew immediate scrutiny from state regulators. Two days later, a second spill, this time involving hydrofluoric acid, a highly corrosive substance, caused Flint Hill Elementary School, located less than 1,000 feet from the plant, to close and bus students to another facility.
The South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (SCDES) responded by ordering Silfab to immediately cease all operations pending a joint investigation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Operations partially resumed on March 9 after SCDES and EPA completed their on-site assessment, though Silfab was required to enter a Compliance Agreement and may not restart chemical manufacturing processes until further regulatory approval. For community members who had warned for years about the risks of heavy industrial chemical operations near homes and schools, the incidents were a sobering confirmation of their concerns.
Two Years in Legal Limbo
The Attorney General’s letter lands against a backdrop of years of legal and political turmoil surrounding the Silfab facility. The controversy began when a York County zoning technician issued a Zoning Verification response stating that Silfab’s solar panel manufacturing fell within permissible uses under the Light Industrial zone, but it is the Citizens Alliance for Governmental Integrity’s (CAGI) position is that Zoning Verification is distinct from Zoning Compliance approval, which only the Zoning Administrator has the authority to grant.
An adjacent property owner challenged that determination in May 2024, filing an appeal with the York County Board of Zoning Appeals. The BZA ruled unanimously that solar cell and panel manufacturing was not a permitted use in a Light Industrial zone. Rather than honoring that ruling, York County Management issued a statement in June 2024. The Citizens Alliance for Governmental Integrity (CAGI) was created and joined the fight. The adjacent property owner obtained intervenor status and, along with CAGI, filed a separate lawsuit against York County, Silfab Solar, and Silfab’s landlord, Exeter, focused on the zoning violations. In December 2024, Judge Martha Rivers stayed the CAGI lawsuit, ruling it would be resolved through the outcome of Silfab’s BZA appeal. However, that appeal was then ordered to mediation, which ended in an April 2025 impasse, leaving both legal actions in a procedural deadlock, each waiting on the resolution of the other.
Now, Silfab’s appeal of the BZA decision has been set for a hearing on May 26, 2026. If that date holds, it will mark two full years since the BZA issued its unanimous ruling before the matter receives its first court hearing. For community members and advocacy groups who have fought the facility since its earliest permitting stages, the prolonged delay represents not just a legal frustration but an ongoing public health concern, given that the facility has been actively operating in what the BZA determined to be an improperly zoned location throughout those two years.
Attorney General Wilson Enters the Fray
Attorney General Alan Wilson’s letter comes about a week after two chemical spills shut down the facility and more than two years into a legal battle that has yet to be resolved, whose next hearing has been set on May 26, 2026.
On March 17, 2026, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson sent a formal letter to Christi Cox, Chairwoman of the York County Council, demanding answers about how Silfab Solar’s manufacturing facility in Fort Mill came to receive its zoning approvals and permits. The two-page letter, written on official Office of the Attorney General letterhead, arrives at a moment of escalating public alarm. Two weeks ago, the Silfab facility experienced back-to-back chemical spills that temporarily closed a nearby elementary school and drew state and federal intervention.
Wilson opened his letter by noting that his office has continued to receive questions from concerned citizens about the status of Silfab’s zoning in York County. He acknowledged that much of the public confusion stems from an ongoing lawsuit in York County Circuit Court arising out of a decision by the York County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), which had previously determined that solar cell and panel manufacturing at the Silfab facility was not a permitted use under its Light Industrial zoning designation.
The Attorney General noted that Silfab contends York County itself previously confirmed that solar cell and panel manufacturing were permissible under the facility’s Light Industrial zoning, a position that stands in direct conflict with the BZA’s prior stance in their zoning verification process.
In an effort to provide clarity, Wilson posed eight-pointed questions to Chairwoman Cox:
1. Did York County follow the standard permitting process for the construction of the Silfab facility?
2. As part of that permitting process, did Silfab seek a zoning permit from York County?
3. As part of the zoning process, did York County ever formally conclude that solar cell and panel manufacturing are permissible under Silfab’s zoning as a Light Industrial district?
4. If so, who made that decision on behalf of York County?
5. If that decision was made by an employee of York County, did York County Council ratify that decision?
6. At any point in time, has Silfab requested a variance from existing zoning or rezoning?
7. What effect, if any, should be given to the York County Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision?
8. Has York County issued any additional permits to Silfab following the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision?
Wilson closed his letter by expressing respect for the York County Council while making clear that citizens deserve answers. He urged the parties in the ongoing York County Circuit court litigation to request that the court expedite its resolution of the pending case so that a decision can be reached as soon as possible.
What Comes Next
The convergence of the Attorney General’s letter, the upcoming May 26 court hearing, and the fallout from the chemical spills has placed the Silfab situation at a critical juncture. For community advocates and groups like CAGI and Move Silfab, the past two years have validated their concerns about what happens when zoning rules are sidestepped, and industrial facilities are permitted to operate near homes and schools without proper legal authority.
The questions posed by Attorney General Wilson are not merely procedural. They go to the heart of whether York County followed its own laws in approving Silfab’s facility, which bore responsibility for the zoning decision, and what weight should now be given to the unanimous BZA ruling that found the facility’s manufacturing operations to be impermissible from the start. Citizens across York County and across South Carolina will be watching closely as the county formulates its response and as the Circuit Court, after two years of waiting, is finally ready to weigh in. The May 26 hearing date cannot come soon enough for the residents of Fort Mill.