Oct 10, 2002 By Patty Shultz 4 min read

CONNELLSVILLE – A local businessman believes certain council members are playing politics and have made him their latest target. “I am being unjustly prosecuted,” said Randy Strickler on Wednesday. “I have been in the sign and billboard business for nearly 10 years. I know what I am doing and I did not use my position on the planning commission to get this done.”

Last month, Strickler, who until Tuesday served on the board, began building the multi-level structure on the city’s West Side that has become a controversial issue with city council.

When it was discovered signatures were not attached to the building permit placard at the building site, questions began surfacing about whether he had followed procedures needed to obtain authorization.

During Tuesday’s council meeting, the panel authorized its solicitor to file an injunction to have the building removed from the intersection of routes 119 and 201, stating it was constructed without a valid permit and creates a health and safety hazard to drivers using the road.

“I know that my application was sitting on the table when we had our June meeting,” said Strickler. “There was mine and another one and for some reason it was not recorded in the meeting minutes.”

He had taken the application, that included signatures of Dick Widmer and Rita Bornstein, who represent the city’s engineering firm, and code officer, respectively, and copies of authorizations from PennDOT and the Connellsville Municipal Authority to the city municipal building after the board met in early May, he said.

According to city records, then commission chairman Mike Paxinos and secretary Samuel Spotto signed the application on May 20. Additionally, a building permit placard bearing the number 1456 was attached to the application.

Strickler said procedure would require review by the board and the issuance of the permit be reflected in the meeting minutes.

At the May meeting, application numbers 1435 to 1455 were reviewed by the board. With the exception of number 1455 all were approved by the panel.

In June, application numbers 1458 to 1487 came before the commission with 1466 being withheld pending inspection by state Labor and Industry and 1482 being denied because it did not contain all the required documentation.

“I don’t know how it was overlooked,” said Strickler, who completed the paperwork for the two meetings. “It was my permit, but I don’t know how it got by us.”

He said he moved forward with the project, believing that he had a valid permit.

Strickler first removed the former free-standing electronic sign that had operated at the intersection for approximately eight years.

“I had every intention to replace that sign,” he said. “I could have put a pole in the ground and put the sign on that, but I wanted to do something nicer, something that would make that intersection look nice.”

Strickler agrees a multi-level building with only a particleboard exterior is not esthetically pleasing, but believes when the stucco fa?ade is complete and the signs are attached, it will not look out of place on the property.

The signs, building and its location also meet the state Department of Transportation requirements, he said.

“I have met with them and have been given the go-ahead to do this,” said Strickler. “Why would I invest all of this time and money into something without being sure everything is done right?”

Strickler is hoping the planning commission schedules a meeting within the next week to address the matter and allows him to move forward.

He said several contracts with businesses are scheduled to be implemented on Oct. 15, but because of construction delays, he has had to ask for their indulgence until the matter is resolved and he can proceed with the project.

“I do see the planning commission approving this,” he said. “I have met the criteria and (commission solicitor) Kirk Sohonage has said everything is in order. You can’t vote against it because someone doesn’t like the looks of it.

“I also see the city council pushing ahead with this injunction, but it can’t go anywhere because I’ve done everything right.”

Concerning the investigation into his acquisition of the property proposed by council, Strickler said he approached the P&LE Railroad Co., which owned the site since 1913, to sell him the triangular piece in 1992.

“I was getting into the sign business and I was looking for property to put them on,” he said. “It was never owned by the city.”

Strickler said while it appears there is little backing for the project, he continues to receive support from area businesses and their owners.

“I guess I’m not considered a team player (with the current administration),” he said of his removal from the board and the opposition to his project. “I was put on the board by the past administration, and it seems if that’s the case you’re gone.”