GAINSWave® Treatment in York, SC

A South Carolina company just bought a long list of properties across York and Lancaster counties, combining for more than $85 million.

Saviria LLC bought nine York County properties on Oct. 23 for a combined $35.8 million. The more than 20 acres includes commercial and residential sites in Rock Hill, Fort Mill and York. Saviria also bought nine Indian Land and Lancaster properties on Oct. 10 for $48.8 million. They combine for more than 150 acres.

Saviria listed its owner’s address as a home in the Piper Glen area of Charlotte, according to land records in York and Lancaster counties. The limited liability company is registered in South Carolina, state records show, with a registered agent in Indian Land who could not immediately be reached for comment.

Rock Hill properties involved in the sales are the Founders Federal Credit Union building at Home Depot Boulevard and Celanese Road, plus land on three sides of the Mount Gallant and India Hook roads intersection.

Two small properties in Fort Mill are on the corner of Tom Hall and Sanders streets, near the Walmart Neighborhood Market shopping center. York sites are vacant properties at Alexander Love Highway and Court House Avenue.

The Charlotte company owns several other retail and residential properties throughout York County.

In Lancaster County, five of the now nine properties Saviria owns are connected just south of Fort Mill Highway in Indian Land, southwest of Stock Lane. Those vacant properties just east of the York County line combine for about 60 acres.

Another Indian Land site is more than 60 acres west of U.S. 521, opposite Marvin Road. Three more properties, including the one Saviria owned prior to last month, are vacant sites off Marvin Road near the Union County, North Carolina, line. They combine for more than 30 acres.

The final piece is a gas station at 1200 N. Main St. in Lancaster.

Million-dollar business sales in Rock Hill region

Saviria wasn’t the only company purchasing properties last month. Others include:

Million-dollar home sales

Along with commercial sites, there were 27 homes that sold in October for $1 million or more in the region.

A Rock Hill home on Ivy Arbor Circle led the way at $2.8 million. Fort Mill had nine million-dollar sales, followed by Lake Wylie with six, Tega Cay with five, Rock Hill with three and Indian Land with two. York and McConnells each had one.

Use the map below for details on all the million-dollar home sales, with the October deals listed with blue icons.

Dear Editor,

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 16^th 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.

On 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 written 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”.

“There can be no vested rights in an invalid permit…”

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 yourself. 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.

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.