Bethel Twp. grants zoning variances for multi-faceted Bell & Evans signage

This article was funded by LebTown donors as part of our Civic Impact Reporting Project.

Bethel Township’s zoning board unanimously approved on Tuesday four variances to allow Bell & Evans to construct a three-tiered outdoor sign on one side of its existing plants. 

The 14- by 48-foot sign will face Interstate 78 on the north side of Plant 2, which is currently expanding with new construction, according to Beth M. Kohl, real estate attorney for Bell & Evans.  

Following an hour-plus long presentation by Kohl, which included asking questions of company CEO Mike Bracrella, the board voted at the end of the discussion to provide the following relief from existing zoning ordinances: 

• That it won’t be a “moving” sign and just a “changing” sign that will be permitted by right, and that if it is or becomes a moving sign, that a variance must be sought to grant that usage.
• Permit the signage to be above the 35-foot maximum height as stated in existing township ordinance. 
• Grant that it can be more than one wall sign since three were proposed as part of this company project.
• Allow the sign to project 7.1 feet above the maximum height of 3 feet, meaning the relief is an additional 4.1 feet above what’s permissible under an existing ordinance. 

Kohl began her presentation by requesting an interpretation from the board for the definition of what they were proposing to be LED illumination within the zoning ordinance.

The left side of the building will contain a messaging component, the center part of the building will contain an illuminated Bell & Evans logo and the far right side will have what was described as its newly designed chicken logo. A red “wash” that runs from the chicken on the right to the message sign on the left will unify the three signs.

“The township zoning ordinance has language that says that no sign in the township shall contain, and I quote, ‘shall not contain moving parts or use flashing or intermittent illumination and that the source of light shall be steady and stationary,’” Kohl said. “Through our testimony tonight you’ll hear from Mr. Bracrella that the intention of this sign and the way it is to be used on this building is that it will have digital ability to change its display but it is not intended to have any type of movement in its display.”

Kohl noted the message is “intended to be a message that is static for an hour at a time with the potential to change it from day to day.” However, it was stated later that the message portion may change more than once per hour. 

“There’s not anything about this sign that is going to be the frequent movement that is a bright pulsing or flashing that would trigger the requirement or prohibition on flashing and it’s not really intermittently illuminated,” Kohl added. “It will be illuminated at all times with a message with steady brightness, (and) just will have the ability for the content of the sign to change. And so I would offer as proof to you that those are conditions on the operation that could be attached to that determination.”

Following a reading of an ordinance that defines signage by zoning hearing board solicitor Michael J. Gombar Jr., zoning board alternate Dale Bevans said he saw at least two separate signs. He, however, also said that he supports providing relief for all three signs since the word “symbol” is contained within the zoning language. 

“I wouldn’t even have said that’s a sign unless I heard that term symbol, so if you want to follow the literal written word, potentially, I’d say at least two. She didn’t have that included in your signage,” Bevans said. 

“I think the chicken itself, as worded on the application, we called it multi-part signage because that definition is broad and you know it is an emblem,” Kohl said. 

During the Q&A between Kohl and Bracrella, he said that the “sign will have no video capabilities or movement capabilities.”

“Again, it’s consistent with the sign that we have at the Wellness Center,” Bracrella said, agreeing that there will be no other physical moving parts on the signs.

He also agreed with Kohl’s question that company officials were agreeable to fading the existing posted message to avoid what she called “an abrupt flip in content.” 

“Yeah, again, I hate to keep coming back to this, but it would be consistent with the Wellness Center,” Bracrella said. “That’s kind of a soft change when that changes and this would be it’s almost the same sign, just larger.”

Seibert zoning request

In a separate board action, the members unanimously approved a request from Melissa Seibert of the 100 block of Laurel Drive to construct additions on her property. 

Bethel Township zoning officer Jackie Hollenbach said Seibert seeks to construct a deck on the rear of her home and a porch to the front side. 

After discussion with board members about the project, directors voted to permit the submitted design to “encroach within the setback requirements as long as the dimensions don’t exceed what’s on the drawing and is consistent with the percentage of the building coverage as noted on the (submitted) drawing.”

At the end of the two hearings, the board briefly discussed holding one final hearing before the end of the calendar year to consider another zoning request concerning a planned feed mill being proposed by Bell & Evans. 

That request, if permitted, would see construction of a number of silos that would be up to 175 feet in the air. No date was set for that zoning hearing, and it is uncertain if it will occur this year or in 2026. 

Bethel Township’s zoning hearings are held on an as-needed basis in the meeting room of the township municipal building at 3015 S. Pine St., Fredericksburg.