A Howard County resident cleared a big hurdle to keep the go-kart race track he built on his property despite complaints from neighbors.

The Board of Appeals unanimously agreed Chris Siperko's race track falls under their jurisdiction on Thursday, after a hearing that lasted more than five hours.

This opens the door for Siperko to again try for a conditional use permit for the race track.

Meanwhile, neighbors who have been against the race track from the start vow they'll keep fighting it.

Defining an athletic field

When Siperko first built the race track at his Highland home, all he thought of was his son, Achilles.

"My son wants to be a professional driver, so there was nowhere local to practice," Siperko said.

When he started construction for it in December 2023, Siperko thought he had done his due diligence -- not finding anything online to suggest he couldn't build the race track on his property.

Siperko also consulted with a paving company.

"They said if it does not touch your driveway and go to the road, it's your own property. You don't need [a permit]," Siperko said.

He's now been fighting to keep it ever since. 

The battle to stop the go-kart track

It didn't take long for his neighbors to start complaining about the go-kart track. The Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning also cited Siperko.

DPZ also dismissed his conditional use application for it, citing that go-karting isn't a permitted activity under the county code.

Under county code for outdoor athletic facilities, it notes conditional use permits may be granted in residential zones for athletic fields, swimming pools, tennis courts, disc golf courses, ropes courses, and archery ranges.

But in front of the four-member Board of Appeals on Thursday, Siperko's lawyer, Sang Oh, argued the race track is qualified to be an athletic field under county code -- even if it's not specifically listed.

G. Macy Nelson, the lawyer for Siperko's neighbors, said the Board of Appeals needs to refer only to the code's wording.

"Go-kart race track is not on that list, that was [DPZ's] rationale," Nelson said.

However, in the end, the Board of Appeals sided with Siperko. Several board members also said DPZ didn't give enough information as to why Siperko couldn't have the race track.

Nelson said he and his clients are ready to keep fighting this.

The next hearing for this case is set for June 26.