Sign Pro v. Town of Southington: A Timeline
- Philip Thibodeau
- 2 days ago
- 7 min read
Updated: 13 minutes ago
The case of Sign Pro v. Town of Southington involves a number of important legal questions, which will be examined in future articles. However, it can be difficult to evaluate those questions without a good general grasp of the events that have transpired. For that reason, we thought our readers would find it useful to have a timeline of the case, one based on publicly available materials.
The summary below relies on dated documents that have been submitted to federal court, and are currently available (for a fee) through the PACER system – an assortment of emails, applications, and selections of deposition testimony. It does not aspire to be comprehensive or to summarize all the allegations and defenses that have been made; instead it is designed to lay out in clear fashion some of the main actions that have occurred in the seven years since the dispute began brewing.
Sign Pro Moves to Southington: 2014
Sign Pro Inc. was founded in 1990 by its current president, Peter Rappoccio. Originally based in New Britain, the company moved to Southington in 2014, opening a facility at 60 Westfield Drive in Plantsville.
Rappoccio Reports Alleged Non-Compliant Signage to Town: 2019 to 2022
Starting in 2019, Rappoccio began sending notices to Town Manager Mark Sciota and various other local officials drawing attention to signs in Southington that he said were not in compliance with the town’s regulations, lacked proper permits, or were installed by unlicensed vendors. Rappoccio’s most recent filing includes the text of six such reports, together with replies from officials acknowledging receipt and stating that the reports would be reviewed. The earliest of these emails dates to May 1, 2019; the latest, to May 9, 2022, right around the time the lawsuit was filed. Rappoccio says in his correspondence that his motive for reporting the infractions was to ensure that there was a level-playing field for himself and his competitors, with all having to meet the same standards.
The Sign Pro Annex Building: 2020 to 2021
On November 16 of 2020, Sign Pro applied to the town for a permit to build a new annex facility at 161 Canal Street, just across the street from its main campus. The contractor’s description of the project says that it is for “construction of new, 15,000 SF low hazard equipment storage facility,” and included an architectural drawing intended to show, among other details, the presence of five garage doors.
In his review of the plan, Southington Building Official John Smigel wrote “No parking of commerical motor vehicles see IBC section 903.2.10.1.” On January 4, 2021, Building Official Jeffrey Pooler signed a building permit that indicated that the Fire Department had approved the plan and allowed work on the facility, but with the qualification, “No storage of commercial motor vehicles allowed per IBC section 903.2.10.1.”
A Fire Department plan review dated to April 12, 2021 says that the plan is “not in compliance,” explaining, “This 15,000 sq. ft. building was supposed only [to] hold non-combustible building materials for signs per owner conversation. Building cannot house service vehicles inside the building without a fire sprinkler system. No fire sprinkler plans have been submitted to date.”
In August of 2021, according to Rappoccio, Building Official Jeffrey Pooler observed vehicles in the building and said that he could not give it a Certificate of Occupancy; he communicated to Rappoccio that it would need a sprinkler system to bring it up to code for vehicle storage. On September 27, the Town issued a certificate of occupancy approving a "low hazard equipment storage facility," but adding that there should be "no storage of any motor vehicles, commercial or otherwise, unless sprinkler systems is installed and approved."
Rappoccio arranged to have a sprinkler system installed in the structure; he put the cost for this work at approximately $185,000. The building received its Certificate of Occupancy on December 15, 2021, according to a letter signed by Pooler and dated December 28, 2021.
Apple Valley Pharmacy (1 North Main Street): 2022
On January 28 of 2022, Sign Pro sought approval for a signage project at the now-defunct Apple Valley Pharmacy & Gifts. It submitted a zoning application and an application for a building permit to the town. Three days later, Assistant Town Planner David Lavallee sent a letter denying the application on the grounds that regulations prohibited internally illuminated cabinet signs in that zone. In March, Sign Pro responded by citing other examples of such signs in the same zone, and argued that the feature should be grandfathered in due to its presence in the existing sign. On May 9, the zoning application was approved.
The application for a building permit was initially denied on the grounds that it lacked an emergency electrical shutoff inside the building. Sign Pro argued that the only requirement was for an emergency shutoff within view of the Sign, rather than one inside the building. Later Pooler approved the permit. The approval document shows a date of May 18, 2022. According to Rappoccio, the document did not appear on the electronic permit portal system for “several weeks.”
M&T Bank (1 Center St): 2022
On May 19, 2022, Sign Pro finished installing a sign at M&T Bank. Both parties concur that the company did so without seeking a permit first. According to Rappoccio, he proceeded this way on the suggestion of then-Town Attorney Alex Ricciardone, who, he said, advised him to do so in order to see whether it would receive special attention from the Building Department.
On May 20, 2022, M&T received a notice from Pooler that its building was in violation of the Building Code because its sign had no permit. On June 5, Rappoccio sent an email to Ricciardone complaining of the outcome. Later Sign Pro applied for the required permit. On September 22, an inspection of the sign failed on the grounds that Sign Pro would not provide a ladder for inspection due to safety and liability concerns. Later, in November, approval for the signage was granted.
The Suit is Filed: 2022
On April 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed suit in Connecticut Superior Court against the Town of Southington and Jeffrey Pooler. Less than a month later, on May 19, the defendants moved the case to United States District Court, Judge Stefan R. Underhill presiding.
Calvanese Shopping Plaza (685 Queen Street): 2022
On or shortly after May 12, 2022, Sign Pro submitted an application for a building permit to replace the signage and awnings at Calvanese Shopping Plaza. Building Officer Pooler raised concerns regarding the wind and load requirements under the building code, and required the firm to submit engineered drawings for the structures. Sign Pro submitted the requested drawings on July 7, which Rappoccio says cost the firm $8,000 to create. In a series of email exchanges dating from July 15 to August 4, Rappoccio and his attorney David DeBassio asked Ricciardone and Pooler to clarify on what grounds the application had yet to be approved. Eventually town officials acknowledged that the code was being cited incorrectly and granted approval. A town spreadsheet of permits dates the inspection and approval to December 1, 2022.
Additional Defendants Added: 2022
In the fall of 2022, on October 31, the plaintiffs added former Town Manager Mark Sciota and former Town Council Chair Victoria Triano as defendants.
Riverstone Square (36 Queen St): 2023
Sometime in the middle of 2023, Sign Pro submitted an application for a sign at Riverstone Square. Pooler denied the application on the grounds that the submitted plans lacked sufficient structural detail and that the installation had unique circumstances. Sign Pro’s attorney submitted a letter to the department listing six signs of similar size that had been permitted in Southington without any request for engineered drawings. Pooler maintained his position. Sign Pro commissioned engineered drawings and submitted them on June 21, 2023. A spreadsheet provided by the town gives April 16, 2025 as the date of inspection, and dates the final approval to April 17, 2025.
Settlement Conference: 2023
A four-hour long settlement conference was held between the two parties on November 15, 2023, overseen by Judge Robert A. Richardson. The conference failed to result in a settlement.
Changes in Personnel: 2024 to 2025
Mark Sciotta retired from the position of Town Manager, which he had held for seven years, on June 30, 2024. He was replaced by former Town Attorney Alex Ricciardone, who continues to be Southington’s Town Manager.
Pooler entered into a separation agreement with the town effective January 10, 2025. In return for releasing the town of all claims, the town agreed to pay Pooler $52,340. Since then the chief Building Official has been David Riccio.
Mobile Billboard Complaint: 2025
On January 13, 2025, Zoning Enforcement Officer Matt Reimondo sent a Notice of Violation to Maximum Associates at 36 Valley View Court, asking that a mobile billboard for Sign Pro parked at their property be removed within ten days. According to Reimondo, a competitor of Sign Pro, Gorilla Signs & Wraps, submitted a complaint regarding the trailer. Southington’s signage regulations classify mobile billboards as a forbidden class of sign. Sign Pro countered that this was an example of selective enforcement, citing other mobile billboards located in town.
Recent Developments in the Case: 2025 to 2026
On June 26 of 2025, the plaintiffs added current Town Manager Alex Ricciardone and current Town Council Chair Paul Chaplinsky as defendants.
Depositions in the case were taken over a year-and-a-half period running from September 27, 2024 (Alex Ricciardone), to January 28, 2026 (Peter Rappoccio).
On March 30 of this year, the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. This motion asks that the judge find that the plaintiff’s constitutional rights had not been violated by the town’s actions, and, in effect, dismiss the case.
Sign Pro filed its response to the Motion on June 18. In it, the company argued that the evidence in the case was more than sufficient to keep it moving forward.
On July 2, the defendants filed a reply to Sign Pro's response, sorting out points where the parties agreed and disagreed.
