Howard County hearing on proposed private go‑kart track spotlights noise, wetlands and neighbors' water complaints

Howard County's Board of Appeals spent much of a June 26 continuation hearing on technical testimony about a petition by Charles Saperico to allow a private, family‑oriented electric go‑kart track on an 11.5‑acre property in the rural residential (RR) zone.

Petitioner witnesses described a revised plan that would relocate an existing unpermitted track inward so it complies with the county's 100‑foot setback, add a Type C planting buffer around the track and limit hours (about three hours per day, six days a week, noon to dusk) and lighting (none proposed). Civil engineer Robert Vogel testified the reconfigured track would be about 1.1 acres of paved surface and that landscape buffering and the limited user profile (family and occasional instructor) would limit traffic and visual impacts.

Opponents and several board members focused on three technical questions: whether hydric soils or wetlands are present where the petitioner proposes work, whether any new grading would increase runoff and erosion into a nearby stream and whether the EV go‑karts would be audible at neighboring homes.

Noise consultant Jeffrey A. Straw (Geosonics) testified for the petitioner about a field test at an Orlando track of the same model kart. "A single cart meets the criteria established by the state of Maryland," he told the board, describing a measured level of roughly 63.4 dBA at about 105 feet for one EV. He added that, in a worst‑case stacking scenario, two karts measured side‑by‑side could increase the sound level by about 3 dB (to roughly 66.4 dBA at 105 feet), and three could reach ~68.2 dBA at that distance; at larger distances (for example the 210–260 foot monitoring points in his report) predicted levels for multiple karts fell below the 65 dBA benchmark cited in guidance referenced by staff. Straw acknowledged limitations: his firm measured a single EV lap at a different, commercial Orlando track (the landowner there restricted testing to one EV lap) and did not perform on‑site testing in Highland because, he said, the site lacked a permit.

Neighbors pressed the board on on‑the‑ground impacts. Joe Quill, who lives at 6719 Mink Hollow Road, described a long‑standing spring‑fed cistern system that historically supplied multiple water troughs across adjoining properties. "I actually thought it was an animal in distress and ran out," Quill said of a September 10, 2024 event when he heard loud screeching and said his horses exhibited signs of distress. Quill testified the shared water system worked for roughly 15 years, developed intermittent clogs in recent years, and by 2024 had failed; he said attempts to reconnect lines during construction were temporary and water is now supplied to animals using a portable trough he fills by hose.

Tara Goldberg (6731 Mink Hollow) recorded video on the same September day, and testified she could hear "very loud screeching" inside her home with windows and air conditioning on; she and other neighbors offered those recordings to the board as demonstrative evidence of on‑site noise during an unpermitted operation.

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) file was also discussed; MDE inspection notes entered into the record identify hydric soils in parts of the lower, east side of the parcel and advise additional test trenches and delineation to define wetland and buffer boundaries across the site. Opponents argued that possible hydric soils and proximity to the stream make the parcel distinct and pose an increased risk of erosion or pollutant runoff if impervious surfaces are added on sloping ground. The petitioner's engineer said final grading, wetland avoidance, and stormwater controls would be resolved and enforced during the site development and permitting process if a conditional use is approved.

The board did not render a final decision on the conditional use at the June 26 session; it continued the hearing to July 10, 2025 at 6:30 p.m., and set procedures for parties to file short written summaries. Witnesses who still need to testify were recalled and the board asked parties to provide any further delineation or engineering evidence required to resolve the location of wetlands, proposed grading and modelled noise at representative receiving points.

Next procedural step: the hearing resumes July 10, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. Parties were asked to file case summaries and any new technical evidence in advance.