South Carolina court upholds zoning decision against Silfab Solar manufacturing facility

The court’s decision confirms the BZA’s earlier finding that solar panel manufacturing does not fall within the permitted uses for Light Industrial zones. However, the ruling does not immediately require Silfab to stop operating at the Fort Mill facility, as separate legal proceedings relating to the site remain unresolved. 

Following the decision, opponents of the project renewed calls for York County to enforce the ruling and take action against the facility, arguing that the court decision confirms the manufacturing operation does not comply with local zoning requirements. 

York County said it was not a party to the case and maintained its position that zoning interpretations apply to future decisions rather than projects that were approved before the interpretation was issued. The county said the ruling does not affect approvals granted to developments that existed before the zoning interpretation was made. 

The dispute began after a York County resident requested a zoning interpretation in February 2024 on whether solar panel manufacturing was allowed in Light Industrial zones. The county’s zoning administrator declined to issue the requested interpretation but clarified the county’s position on the matter. 

The resident then appealed the issue to the BZA, which ruled in May 2024 that solar panel manufacturing was not permitted under the Light Industrial zoning classification. The circuit court has now upheld that decision. 

However, York County said the court has not yet decided whether the BZA ruling applies to Silfab’s existing facility. A separate circuit court case examining that issue remains adjourned while the zoning appeal was considered. 

The county said it will enforce whatever decision the courts ultimately reach.

“This court decision has no effect on our current operations, which continues to deliver high-quality and high-performing PV solar modules to customers across North America.  As York County has previously confirmed, the local zoning appeal board’s ruling only applies prospectively to future projects,” Silfab told PV Tech.

“Our Fort Mill operation was already approved and permitted and was well underway prior to the zoning appeal board decision. We are encouraged that the court left open the possibility that zoning for solar assembling operations like ours may fall under other permissible use categories. Nevertheless, we will be appealing this ruling to ensure that future opportunities to expand production and hiring remain open and to protect the zoning process from being manipulated in the future as our opponents did in this case.”

The latest ruling comes as Silfab continues to operate under restrictions introduced after chemical incidents at the Fort Mill site earlier this year, which the solar cell and module manufacturer disputed some initial reports of chemical spillages back in March 2026.

York County said that, as of 16 March 2026, no chemical manufacturing activities were taking place at the facility and that only solar module assembly operations were being carried out under a compliance agreement involving Silfab, the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (SCDES) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Under the agreement, Silfab stopped activities involving regulated chemicals until a number of conditions were met. These included completing a root cause investigation, carrying out repairs, receiving an independent engineering review and improving emergency response procedures before regulated chemicals can be brought back to the site. 

The company must also provide SCDES with a 72-hour notice before returning regulated chemicals to the facility, with York County receiving the same notification. 

York County said state and federal regulators concluded there was no threat to public health after inspections following the March chemical incidents. The county also said the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found no workplace safety violations. 

The county added that its authority over chemical regulation is limited, with oversight primarily handled by state and federal agencies.

The story has been updated to include Silfab’s comments.