alfadriver said:In reply to theruleslawyer :
Again, change "kart track" to "garbage dump" - does that change anything?
nope. It could be a garbage helopad too.
alfadriver said:In reply to theruleslawyer :
Again, change "kart track" to "garbage dump" - does that change anything?
nope. It could be a garbage helopad too.
theruleslawyer said:alfadriver said:In reply to theruleslawyer :
Again, change "kart track" to "garbage dump" - does that change anything?
nope. It could be a garbage helopad too.
Sorry, if someone opened a stinky dump without a permit next door to you, I don't believe for a second you would be ok with it. We are not talking a dairy farm that has its own special aroma here.
But if you think it helps this example to pretend you would, run with it, I guess.
I think for me, if it's kosher within zoning/general ordinances, then I really couldn't give two E36 M3s if it irritates my neighbors. So, when something my neighbors are doing is almost irritating me, I remind myself that I live by a mantra that's likely led to me irritating them, possibly a lot, in the past.
I think that's where the garbage dump analogy falls apart. If dudes track was unpermitted, it's because it's probably in a bit of a grey area of residential permitting. Generally hardscaping, if it's not in the right of way, and not in a RPA/buffer area/wetlands, is not required to have a permit, at least in my neck of the woods. So, it's entirely possible that this teeth gnashing is because he's legally pissing off his neighbors. And I'm okay with that. A garbage dump, on the other hand, would likely require very specific zoning, approval and permitting, in most every locality. Go kart flavored apples being compared to pile of rotting oranges.
Spearfishin said:I think for me, if it's kosher within zoning/general ordinances, then I really couldn't give two E36 M3s if it irritates my neighbors. So, when something my neighbors are doing is almost irritating me, I remind myself that I live by a mantra that's likely led to me irritating them, possibly a lot, in the past.
I think that's where the garbage dump analogy falls apart. If dudes track was unpermitted, it's because it's probably in a bit of a grey area of residential permitting. Generally hardscaping, if it's not in the right of way, and not in a RPA/buffer area/wetlands, is not required to have a permit, at least in my neck of the woods. So, it's entirely possible that this teeth gnashing is because he's legally pissing off his neighbors. And I'm okay with that. A garbage dump, on the other hand, would likely require very specific zoning, approval and permitting, in most every locality. Go kart flavored apples being compared to pile of rotting oranges.
Right. If you wanted to be plausiblefor the area- Maybe you have a big compost pile that you use to turn into bio fuel or something. It's kinda stinky and your downwind neighbor might not love it. An adult would be like "Hey can you do something to mitigate the odor?" Dealing with other people's freedom is the price of having freedom of your own. Not the same scale, but its why I specifically bought a house out of HOA. My neighbors have annoyed me on occasion, but I also don't have nosy people dropping by saying I can't work on my cars.
TBH a go kart track is a little weird, but you could easily have kids ripping around on ATVs or dirt bikes on those sort of lots. Same sort of noise issues.
Puddy46 said:No permits, no sympathy.
I agree, IF it's true that one was required.
I've seen NOTHING showing it was. I have looked up the local zoning ordinances in Howard County. It appears this may not have required a permit (but would have if it was commercial).
It's also not clear it put wetlands at risk, or if there was enough disturbance to require silt fences and erosion control.
I'll be happy to concede if the court decides a permit was required. Until then, we are all just contributing to the unsubstantiated noise related to this.
Karens gonna Karen.
1) He's already admitted to violating property line setback requirements. So anybody saying there's not proof he's in violation is already wrong.
2) He wouldn't be going back through the process retroactively if the permits the county says were needed, were not actually needed. Nowhere has he argued that the permits were not required.
3) Would anybody care to tell me how he put in that track without doing any grading?
"Grade means to disturb earth by, including but not limited to, excavating, filling, stockpiling, grubbing, removing root mat or topsoil, or any combination thereof."
"Grading permit.
(a) Permit Required. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not clear or grade land in Howard County without a grading permit from the Department of Inspections, Licenses and Permits. Before a grading permit for any site is issued, the County shall review and approve a final erosion and sediment control plan for the site."
Well, that took all of 2 minutes to find by a rank amateur with no professional local permitting experience, like this guy has. The erosion and sediment control plan requirements are specifically there to then uncover any other wetland and drainage limitations he might or might not have otherwise known about.
4) His public records for roofing business permits should make it pretty easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knows enough to know that due diligence means asking any questions about permitting directly to the county, and not just do an unverifiable (and obviously half-assed, if it was performed at all) 'internet search'.
5) These are the rules he agreed to by moving in there. If he finds them unreasonable, he shouldn't have moved to a development under such 'draconian' rule.
People who take maximum liberties with the rules, especially when flying in the face of common decency, deserve maximum permissable repercussions when being found to have violated the rules. Letting it be better ask forgiveness than permission is what allows entitled shiny happy people to thrive.
Man plays stupid games. Wins stupid prizes.
In reply to Driven5 :
In over 40 years in construction, I've never seen a driveway have to adhere to setback requirements. Setbacks are for buildings. Driveways and parking lots are frequently on property lines.
Grading permits always have a minimum square footage requirement. In GA it's 1 acre. You left something out. Plus, it's rural. That might include AG zoning.
His retroactive efforts are because he is being accused of something (which hasn't yet been proven)
Let's not make assumptions about the rules.
As I understand it (including in that video), it's under review. That tells me that it's not as clear as it appears.
This just makes me glad I live in a rural area with less draconian rules and regulations. I understand noise concerns and think going with an electric cart would be a good choice. No organized races and a reasonable limit on the number of users at a time. Beyond that his land, his choice.
In reply to SV reX :
I'm not going to dig to prove something he's admitted to and moving the parts of the track that are in violation of part of his proposal. But if I had to guess, since it's not connected to the road, it's also probably not a driveway either... Which actually appears to be an ironic backfiring of the loophole he claims he was originally trying to use.
As for the grading permit exemptions:
"(b) Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this subtitle:
(1) Agricultural land management practices and agricultural BMPs;
(2) Construction of a single-family residence or accessory buildings thereto that disturbs an area of less than 0.5 acres and occurs on a lot of two acres or more;
(3) Clearing or grading activities that disturb less than 5,000 square feet of land area and disturb less than 100 cubic yards of earth;
(4) The laying of gas, electrical, telephone, or cable television lines which disturbs less than 100 linear feet; or
(5) Clearing or grading activities that are subject exclusively to State approval and enforcement under State law and regulations."
He has also been specifically stated as being 'rural-residential' zoned, so I believe that means residential codes too, not AG. If AG zoning would have allowed this without any permits or assessments, he should have purchased AG zoned property instead... Or at least not avoided performing real and meaningful due diligence from the start.
Whether or not permits were required (and obtained) is not even what is under review, nor is that what he's fighting. What's under review is his appeal and Conditional Use proposal that is fighting to keep what he admittedly built without obtaining the required permits, which would then allow him to go through the rest of the process of getting all of the land use plans, assessments, and mitigations retroactively performed, submitted, and reviewed per the original permitting requirements too.
Part of that question under review is also whether a go kart track is even allowed by the residential-rural code at all, even if he fulfilled all the other permit requirements. I'm not going to dig into it further, but it seems the basis of which includes trying to classify this as an 'athletic' facility, which would then technically set a precedent for also allowing other paved tracks in the rural residential zoning. Something applicable that appears debatable too, is whether or not unpaved tracks that people have argued here would even be allowed either in the rural-residential zoning.
In reply to Driven5 :
I'm not defending the guy. Couldn't care less.
But I'm also not condemning him. That's not my job- it's the job of the courts and enforcement officials.
Every single article I have found on this cites different issues and different versions of the story. It's a code violation. It's a zoning issue. It's an environmental issue. It's non-tidal wetlands (but not identified on the wetlands map). He didn't get permits. He first checked and found permits aren't required. It's noise disturbance. It's only been used for 15 minutes. It's hardscaping. It's a race track. RR zoning permits private athletic facilities. On and on and on the story keeps shifting and changing.
It looks like his version keeps changing, but so does the neighbor's version.
The only thing that is clear to me is that the media doesn't know what they are talking about, and the armchair lawyers all over the country have no idea what the issues are.
It's not my job to condemn it, but I will when the facts are sorted out by the people who have that responsibility.
In reply to SV reX :
I don't think you can really pretend to be above the fray here. Condemning the neighbors as 'Karens' and armchair lawyering only on his behalf, is pretty much the definition of caring about and defending his side of the story only before the facts have been sorted.
As much as I could of what I've posted is based on actual documents and documented statements, including from him and his team in addition to the county, rather than media recaps.
In reply to Driven5 :
It ain't my fray. Don't give a E36 M3.
But that doesn't mean I'm gonna take sides against him either. I will wait to hear the actual outcome.
I'm 1000 miles away, and have never lived in Maryland. I don't know local politics.
If it was a simple decision, it wouldn't have dragged on this long. It ain't black and white.
Though it doesn't matter, I kinda doubt the guy was intentionally dodging the system. I don't think he is very smart, but I don't think it was intentionally malicious.
Roofing permits are ridiculously simple. Environmental assessments and wetland issues are not.
I think he was out of his league.
There was a line in the news coverage that caught my attention regarding the compromises that were being discussed to the effect of "limiting access to [the kid] and a few friends."
This would seem to imply that the noise was coming from multiple karts and it was being used as more than a simple personal practice facility. I think the dude clearly knew he was working in, at minimum, a grey area when he built the place. And I have no real problem with working in those grey areas, particularly in rural areas. But I think the unspoken rule of civilization here is if you're going to work in the margins of the rulebook, you keep it on the DL and do your best not to flaunt your exploitation and I get the feeling this guy didn't get that memo.
I'm interested to see how the noise ordinance plays out. Seems like the max for residential is either 65 or 55db (unsure if the proposal I found with a quick google is current code or not). Go karts can be loud bastards.
Some people will call the neighbors "Karens", but that's too far IMO. These aren't nosy neighbors complaining that the mailbox is the wrong color or that bushes are ugly. This dude plopped down a berkeleying race track right on the border of neighbors properties. I'd just call that inconsiderate.
Sound Ordance In Howard County:
Maryland state regulations has establish a sound level limits and time periods within these limits:
- Daytime: 7 AM–10 PM, 65 decibels (dBA) for residential properties
- Nighttime: 10 PM–7 AM, 55 dBA for residential properties
A gokart is considered very loud, with the average sound level reaching around 82 decibels, which is classified as "very loud noise" according to most sound level measurements; this noise primarily comes from the engine and can be disruptive in residential areas
It's not zoned residential. Its RR (Rural Residential). They are different.
Personal practice facility doesn't necessarily mean practicing alone.
In reply to SV reX :
That ordinance is for residential properties, as in all residences, no matter what the zoning is. Even if it's zoned mixed use, the buildings that are used as residences could be fined for violating it. Rural residential is still residential.
That being said, it's only a $100 fine
Quite neighbors are good neighbors. Had this guy bought his golden child an electric kart, flags would not have been raised.
On a related note, interesting article about top tier karting in Europe.
You'll need to log in to post.
