Circuit Judge William McKinnon took Silfab Solar's zoning reconsideration request under advisement Wednesday, Aug. 26. No ruling timeline was announced, and two additional legal battles against the Fort Mill manufacturer are advancing.
McKinnon heard arguments for a second time in Silfab's appeal of the York County Board of Zoning Appeals' May 2024 decision that solar cell manufacturing does not qualify as a permitted use in light-industrial zoning. Silfab operates a converted warehouse at 7149 Logistics Lane in Fort Mill.
In July, McKinnon affirmed the zoning board's decision. Silfab's attorneys argued at the Aug. 26 hearing that his conclusions did not match the rationale the zoning board used and that the court misapplied precedent from previous cases, the Post and Courier reported.
The Post and Courier reported McKinnon could render a decision by late September.
"There's nowhere in the table of uses in York County that speaks to solar panel manufacturing use," said Ross Appel, attorney for the Board of Zoning Appeals. "That's the reason there's this problem in York County."
Fort Mill resident Wally Buchanan, who owns land adjacent to Silfab's property, is an intervenor in the case allied with the zoning board. His attorney, J. Cameron Halford, urged McKinnon to deny Silfab's request outright.
Whistleblower countersuit
Separately, Silfab filed a countersuit against former employee Jason Rhoades, who brought a whistleblower lawsuit approximately one year ago accusing the company of unsafe working conditions, including having employees work in the building before an occupancy permit was issued, the Herald Online reported. Silfab's countersuit alleges Rhoades breached loyalty to the company and was not truthful about how he reported concerns.
A status conference in the Rhoades case is scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 24, also before McKinnon.
Chemical injunction filing
The Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity, a Fort Mill-area nonprofit whose members are active in the Move Silfab movement, filed a motion for injunctive relief on Aug. 14 in the Court of Common Pleas seeking to bar Silfab from running chemical manufacturing processes at the plant, WRHI reported. Halford signed the filing.
The motion does not ask the court to close the plant or revoke its certificate of occupancy. It asks the judge to restrict the site to uses that existed before the 2024 BZA decision: office, warehousing and distribution. The group asked for a temporary restraining order lasting 10 days so the county could review the operation.
Named defendants include Silfab Solar Inc., property owner Exeter 7149 Logistics L.P., and York County through its Planning and Development Services department.
Public records cited in the filing show 20 emergency medical calls to the Silfab plant so far in 2026, the most recent on Thursday, Aug. 13, the day York County Council members toured the facility.
Background
Silfab began operations in early 2026. After chemical leak reports in March, the S.C. Department of Environmental Services restricted the plant to assembly work until Silfab met safety requirements. A compliance agreement signed March 16 by the department and Silfab President and CEO Paolo Maccario described scrubber water containing diluted potassium hydroxide discharging into a stormwater structure on March 3 after a valve was left open. Two days later, the department learned of a hydrofluoric acid drip at a storage tank connection.
An unspecified number of employees were furloughed beginning Aug. 17. Silfab officials described the decrease as a "temporary period," citing lack of availability of certain materials required for production.
As we reported Aug. 27, McKinnon also declined on Aug. 26 to lift a stay in the Citizens Alliance's separate lawsuit against Silfab and York County, saying he could not overrule the decision of the judge who paused that case.
The next scheduled court date is the Thursday, Sept. 24 status conference in the Rhoades whistleblower case.
