The backyard go-kart track Charles “Chris” Siperko built for his son lives to see another day for now.
At the end of a six-hour hearing Thursday, the Howard County Board of Appeals voted 4-0 to reverse the Hearing Examiner’s Order from March, which had dismissed Siperko’s petition for conditional use because of lack of jurisdiction to hear the petition. The Hearing Examiner, Katherine Taylor, had determined that because the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) did not list go-kart racing as a permitted activity, she lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
The purpose of the Board of Appeals meeting was solely to determine whether they have jurisdiction to hear the case, which involved deciding if a go-kart track fell into the category of an “athletic field.” If the board determined that it did, the case could proceed to considering the petition for conditional use. If they decided it did not, the case would be over, and Siperko would likely have to remove the track.
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 incensed 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 had indeed needed to clear the plans with Howard County and adhere to certain DPZ regulations.
Board members present were Gene Ryan (Chair), Felita Phillips, Lynn Foehrkolb, and Robbyn Harris.
Oh called Joseph Rutter to testify. Rutter is a former director of Howard County Planning and Zoning, and a former director of the Office of Planning and Zoning in Anne Arundel County. He argued for a broad definition of “athletic field,” and said that just because the zoning regulations do not specifically include “go-kart track” in their list of examples, it could still fall into that category.
“The broader the term, the more opportunity it has, especially with something like a sporting activity,” Rutter said. “No one would have thought about putting into the zoning regulations pickleball, but they’re everywhere. Tennis courts, yes, people know about it. Things like the go kart tracks, they weren’t really a big thing in the 70s.”
Rutter compared the go-kart track to a pickleball court, explaining that just because pickleball is not listed specifically in the zoning regulations does not automatically preclude a court being built in a resident’s backyard. In that case, the Board of Appeals or Hearing Examiner would also have jurisdiction to rule, in Rutter’s opinion.
“The key in the legislative intent is that the intention of the Zoning Board was to guide future growth and development of the county in accordance with the general plan and the most beneficial and convenient relationship among residents, non-residents, and public areas,” Rutter said. “But it’s key is it’s evolving and that’s why you see half a dozen or a dozen amendments to the zoning regulations every year now by council bill, but you have to continue to update the zoning to accommodate new trends.”
After 50 minutes of questioning from Oh, Nelson cross-examined Rutter on his interpretation of the zoning language. Howard County regulations say, “Conditional Use may be granted… for the following outdoor athletic facilities: athletic fields; swimming pools, community; swimming pools, commercial; tennis courts; disk golf courses; ropes courses; and archery ranges…” (Section 131.0, subsection N6).
Nelson argued for a strict interpretation of the zoning language, and that since go-kart tracks are not specifically listed, they do not fall under the category of outdoor athletic facilities for which conditional use can be granted.
“N6 allows the following activities as outdoor athletic facilities, and then it lists athletic fields, swimming pools, etc.,” Nelson said. “It doesn’t say, ‘including the following…’ It gives a precise list of athletic outdoor athletic facilities, does it not?”
“That’s correct,” Rutter answered.
“Alright, and so you’re not suggesting that this go-kart racetrack is an archery range?” Nelson asked.
“I’m suggesting that it is an athletic field,” Rutter said.
Nelson pointed out that the most recent case Rutter was relying on to help him determine Siperko’s track was eligible for a conditional use petition was from 2003, and that case involved a dirt bike track, not a paved racetrack. Even then, the Hearing Examiner did not determine the dirt bike track was an athletic field, as the language used was hardly definitive.
Three members of the community also asked Rutter questions: Stu Kohn, president of the Howard County Citizens’ Association; Daniel O’Leary, representing the Greater Highlands Crossroads Association; and Joel Hurewitz. Members of the Board also questioned Rutter before his testimony concluded.
Siperko testified about why he built the track for his son, who wants to be a professional race car driver, and that he already competes around the country and internationally in go-kart competitions. Admitting he did not do full due diligence in researching how to go about building the track, he trusted the people he hired who had assured him he did not need to acquire permits for the track. They have not used the racetrack since DPZ issued them a notice of violation.
Phillips noted that DPZ did not specify a code or law that Siperko violated, other than to say that they don’t have jurisdiction to rule on the petition because the racetrack is not a listed athletic facility.
Foehrkolb questioned Siperko on why he did not call the county himself to find out what was required for building the racetrack. Siperko admitted he should have, but since his online search yielded nothing, and the paving company assured him he did not need to do anything, he trusted the company he hired.
“Could they not be aware of county zoning regulations?” Foehrkolb asked.
“I mean, it’s enormous company,” Siperko said.
“Enormous companies do enormously bad things,” Foehrkolb said.
Oh brought two professional racecar drivers to testify via video connection, Zachary Clayman De Melo and Raphael Matos. Both testified that race car driving is a sport for which extensive physical training is required, and that go-kart racing is how a child begins learning how to race.
Each side’s attorney then argued the legal points of Howard County’s zoning code language, Siperko’s urging the Board of Appeals to adopt a broad definition of the term “athletic fields” to include the go-kart track, and the neighbors’ laying out precedent for them to stick to the language solely as it was written.
Based on the evidence presented that Siperko had prepared the land as a way for his son to practice the sport of go-kart racing, the Board of Appeals voted unanimously that they had jurisdiction to hear Siperko’s petition for conditional use. The date set for that hearing is June 26 at 9 a.m.
