Park County Commissioners narrowly defeated a sign variance request Tuesday that would have allowed a landowner just east of Ralston to be able to get a second variance to add a sign on the back side of an existing billboard. The landowner had been granted a variance request to build a double-faced, single-sided billboard last year.

Commissioners Lee Livingston and Scott Steward both voted against the variance request, with both concerned about the “slippery slope” of this leading to more similar variance requests and expressed concern about giving multiple variances on one property.

“Whats the next variance, another sign?” Commissioner Scott Steward said. “It is a slippery slope.”

To break a 2-2 tie, Commission Chair Dossie Overfield added the crucial third no vote.

The planning department likewise recommended denial because the applicant did not provide adequate evidence to support the approval criteria.

After the vote — commissioners Scott Mangold and Lloyd Thiel voted in favor — applicant Kevin French asked whether the sign looks better with one side empty and cables sticking out, vs. being covered by another billboard. He said he would have requested a variance for a billboards on the east-facing side last year when he made his initial request if he had known WYDOT would approve it with conditions.

“We’re very much pro business, and we thought it was very much in line with our previous request,” he said Monday in an interview.

French is also building a second, previously approved billboard near the canal on the property.

There were two comments made in opposition to the variance request, both objecting to granting another variance and to billboards in general.

Commissioner Lloyd Thiel, in voicing support for the request, said in many places he would deny a billboard request, but that it made sense in this area so close to Ralston and bordered by a canal which prevents much development.

“There are certain exemptions where these things make sense,” he said. “It’s almost a commercial area there anyway, it’s good utilization of the land. I wouldn’t approve this just anywhere, this is one of those exceptions.”