I’d like to start this post off with an informational message to all snow boarders:  You are not Shaun White.  There are no tv cameras following you around.  Just because you are on a snow board doesn’t mean anything other than you’re probably a beginner and you are going to be wet from falling down 800 times a day.

I’ve been out of town for the long weekend – went skiing at Wintergreen.  The skiing was pretty good until I got run over by a snow boarder.  She was probably 15 years old and 130 pounds so she wasn’t big but she was pretty much outta control and f=ma so it hurt.  I don’t know what it is about snow boarders but there is always a higher percentage of them that are crashing and out of control than of those on skis. 

As reported in the MJM, Mr. Fernandez has indeed submitted a letter to the City asking for guidance through the process of applying to build a 200′ long sign on someone else’s property over at 9500 Liberty.  I say “someone elses” as Ms. Alverez claims to have sold the property.  In any event, the City has responded with a letter indicating that, generally speaking, large signs are not a permitted primary use on residential property and he needs to apply for a re-zoning or a zoning change. 

The sign ordinance referenced in the article (and on BVBL) was passed late last year but has been in the works for some time.  This ordinance permits signs on residential property up to 32 aggregate square feet.  The ordinance does absolutely nothing to manage the content of the sign – only the size.  In crafting the ordinance the primary concern was the preservation of 1st ammendment rights.  Those that believe that the City is breaking some sort of new constitutional ground here haven’t been paying attention – we’re probably the only jurisdiction around that doesn’t have a residential sign law.  Indeed, as the City’s ordinance currently stands, it is the most generous of any surrounding jurisdiction with respect to the size of the sign allowed.