Both sides have rested their cases in the Howard County neighborhood dispute over a go-kart racetrack built by Charles Siperko in his backyard.
The Howard County Board of Appeals heard testimony from the remaining witnesses for the neighbors who oppose the track at a meeting on Thursday evening.
Attorney Sang Oh represented Siperko, and attorney G. Macy Nelson represented the group of neighbors who want the track removed because of noise and environmental concerns. The neighbors were also upset that Siperko had not informed or consulted them he was building a go-kart track, nor had he filed any permits with the county to have the work done. His petition for conditional use was filed after the fact, once he learned he needed to clear the plans with Howard County and adhere to certain Department of Planning and Zoning regulations.
Board members present were Gene Ryan (Chair), Felita Phillips (via video), Lynn Foehrkolb, and Robbyn Harris. Howard County Solicitor Tsega Girma Kyere provided legal clarification to the board when necessary.
On June 25, the board heard witnesses for Siperko testify that the racetrack, if renovated or rebuilt, would not violate zoning or Howard County laws regarding noise levels, buffer lines with adjoining properties, or environmental regulations regarding wetlands on the property. Oh called a civil engineer, the vice-president of the Florida company that tested the noise and vibration levels of Siperko’s go-kart, and finally, Siperko to testify. Nelson had the opportunity to cross-examine them, and the board members were able to question each witness.
Mason began calling witnesses on behalf of the neighbors, some of whose property either shared a property line or a driveway with Siperko. The parties examined and cross-examined the first witness, Joe Quill. The neighbors’ second witness, Dr. Tara Goldberg, was called, but the hearing ended after Mason questioned her.
The July 10 hearing began with Goldberg resuming her place as witness so Oh could cross examine her. He questioned her, as Mason had, about erosion, water quality, and potential effect on wetlands. Moving on to discuss the videos she and her wife had taken of the go-kart track being used on Sept. 10, 2024, he asked if she realized that when one zoomed in on a video, that audio was also amplified. She had not.
Mason asked Goldberg on redirect what it was that prompted her to go outside to begin with, and she answered, “very loud tire squealing.” Mason confirmed again that she had been inside the house with her doors and windows closed and her air conditioning on. Oh asked her on recross if she had any evidence that the noise she heard while inside exceeded the allowable decibel level.
“Only what your expert said. That it was unlikely that you would hear something at the decibel level that he tested that in a house with the doors and windows closed and the AC on,” Goldberg said.
Mason then called Ted Giovanis, a professional race car driver, who appeared via video. Mason asked him about the safety of the track and potential hazards of Siperko’s, specifically the lack of a bumper/barrier.
At that point Ryan interrupted to remind Mason and Giovanis that the Board of Appeals is only allowed to consider the criteria within the code for conditional use, not whether go-kart racing is dangerous.
The next witness, Michael Mulcare, has lived on Mink Hollow Road for 10 years. He also purchased the property adjoining his in November 2023, approximately two weeks before Siperko began building the racecar track.
Mulcare bought the adjoining property hoping his brother could move into the house on that property once it was renovated. He began demolition on the house, but once he realized Siperko was building the racetrack, he stopped the work. It has not been resumed and is unoccupied still.
His opposition to Siperko’s application for conditional use stemmed from the noise, the impact on wildlife, and potential environmental damage. He also had concerns about the potential adverse effect on property values, noting that had he known the go-kart track was going to be constructed, he would not have purchased at least the second property.
On cross-examination, Oh pursued a similar line of questioning as with Goldberg, asking if he had any evidence that the noise levels on Sept. 10 exceeded the decibel levels required by the zoning laws. Mulcare said he did not and was not home on the day it was in use.
Oh then tried to impeach Mulcare’s credibility as someone concerned with environmental impact given his own potential zoning violations. Mason objected to that, but Oh’s argument satisfied the Board and the question was allowed to stand.
“This witness, again, is expressing their personal concern about environmental degradation,” Oh said. “I’m showing, as a matter of credibility, his property has a pond in the stream buffer, mows within the stream buffer. That, I would argue to the board, eventually, is much more deleterious than what has been proposed in this plan. And so, it speaks to the witness’s credibility about their environmental concern.”
Natalie Barrett was the next witness, who testified by phone because she was in California. Barrett lives on Mink Hollow Road and has degrees in electrical and biomedical engineering. She is a systems engineer and based her opposition on concerns about the impact of microplastics and other hazards produced by go-kart tires.
When Oh cross-examined her, he asked questions to establish that microplastics are ubiquitous. He asked if she was aware they are added to and/or present in consumer products, like dishwashing detergent, cosmetics, other personal care products, paints, fertilizer, pesticides, and more.
Barrett agreed they were but said that people have a choice in deciding whether to purchase those products in those cases. With the racetrack, the board is considering the impact of microplastics shed from tires on an electric go-kart into their environment. The neighbors, the environment, the wildlife would have no choice about that.
Anne Cristaldi testified next for the neighbors’ group. She is a realtor with 48 years’ experience, and lives approximately 1-1.5 miles from the Siperko property. She has seen the property from Mulcare’s property and said that according to tax records Siperko’s property touches 11 other properties. This is unusual in that most residential properties only border three or four others.
Mason asked what the significance is of his property bordering 11 other properties from a realtor’s viewpoint.
“Well, my professional opinion is that it impacts the other homeowners that adjoin the property,” Cristaldi said. “I know it affects the value and the quality of use for those other homeowners.”
She cited cases wherein properties sold for much less than they would have otherwise because of surroundings that detracted from the home, like noise, traffic, or other factors. Cristaldi noted that Siperko’s neighborhood is shaped like a bowl, with Siperko’s land sitting lower and the neighbors’ properties elevated above. She felt this positioning would create an echo effect.
Mason asked her to specify what the adverse effects would be on the market or resale value for the surrounding land.
“Because visually, aesthetically, visually, you would see it, and the noise level,” Cristaldi said. “The noise level restricts some of the use. Say, if you wanted horses and livestock, it would restrict the use. People would not be interested. Even if it [the go-kart track] ran once a day or once a week. They still wouldn’t invest in it.”
The next two witnesses, Kelly Rudden and Judy Radas, also opposed the racetrack. Rudden explained that her tax business would be adversely affected, since she works from home as a CPA and tax professional with very long hours and monthly deadlines. She has phone meetings with multi-million-dollar clients which could not be interrupted or rescheduled due to noise from a neighbor’s racetrack.
Radas opposed Siperko’s application because it would interfere with her family’s ability to enjoy the serenity of the surrounding nature. She also, however, took issue with the Board of Appeals.
“I oppose that the board has been inadvertently persuaded and manipulated by the petitioner’s attorney to stretch and redefine a vehicular racetrack to be included as an athletic field, which in reality it is a speedway track,” Radas said. “The board, unfortunately has been duped, allowing this to be heard for conditional use when the TSR report documented explicitly cites the section 131.0.N.6 of what is allowed in go-kart racing is not one of them for the zoning in our Highland community.”
Angela Bruce testified as a neighbor who has lived on Mink Hollow Road since 1976 on the property between Radas and Rudden. She spoke as someone experienced with horses. She and her husband were members of the Maryland Thoroughbred Association Horseman’s Association. She owned a racehorse, and her grandfather owned two. She has lived with and trained them.
“I’m very interested in the fact that a lot of the board members didn’t know about animals and the sound,” Bruce said. “Animals are very acute to hearing, and they hear thingsand they react. They react to thunder, they react to lightning, they react to cars.”
“I’ve trained horses, and I raised dogs,” Bruce continued. “Sound is very acute to them. They can hear things we cannot hear. And it affects them. Horses, if they hear cars near, they will take off at a run. They will run, they will jump fences, they could run out in the road. The road around our area and where the property goes down into the valley, the sound comes up like an amphitheater. Sound reverberates up that hill.”
Mike Cutler testified next. His property is very close to abutting Siperko’s. He was out on his deck when he heard what he described as “what sort of sounded like a continuous car accident.” He learned it was Siperko’s son on the one day they’d used the racetrack. Cutler’s concern was what the noise would be as the child got older and bigger.
“[He’s] going to push harder,” Cutler said. “He’s going to drive faster. He’s going to take the turns faster. As it gets more experienced, he’s going to weigh more, and he may not have the same cart that he has now. So, say, 11-year-old [son] is going to make this much noise, when he’s 15 or 16 and he’s got all those years of experience on that track? There’s a lot of factors that will significantly impact the amount of noise.”
The board and counsel for both sides agreed to produce 15-page summations by July 24 for the board to consider, and the board will reconvene for deliberation in open session on July 31, 2025 at 9 a.m.
