Riccelli Enterprises has encountered another hurdle in its efforts to build two concrete plants on Northern Boulevard. The Cicero Planning Board voted Monday that Riccelli’s application was “incomplete” because the town code does not allow for facilities that manufacture asphalt.

Riccelli received planning board approval in 2014 for two Portland cement, or ready mix, concrete plants, but in November 2014 the company asked to change one of the plants to a bituminous concrete mix, or asphalt, plant. In February 2015, Riccelli withdrew the application but resubmitted it in April.

William J. Gilberti Jr., an attorney for Riccelli, said the planning board’s decision was a “sad day” for business owners in Cicero and said Riccelli was not granted “due process” in the review of the site plan application.

According to Article VII, Section 210-28 B of the town code, the planning board must review site plan applications for “completeness and suitability” per code requirements; Article VII, 210-29 A-1 states that the planning board must also consider a site plan’s “compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses.”

Four of the five planning board members voted to label Riccelli’s application incomplete; Chairman Bob Smith abstained, as he has recused himself from voting on Riccelli because of a possible conflict of interest.

The planning board’s vote comes after two postponements of a public hearing regarding Riccelli’s application. The board adjourned the public hearing May 6 when more people than the town hall could fit showed up to voice their opinions. A continuation of the hearing had been scheduled for May 20 at Cicero-North Syracuse High School, but that date was canceled as well.

Planning board attorney Neil Germain said the town planning board referred Riccelli’s application to the Onondaga County Planning Board. OCPB confirmed that they received the referral May 19, but the county responded that the planning board’s referral was incomplete because the Cicero Zoning Board of Appeals had not granted Riccelli a use variance for the site.

“Basically, the county referral indicates that the project requires a use variance and further states that the manufacturing or processing of asphalt is prohibited in the zone,” Germain said. “From the county’s perspective, the referral is incomplete because it was not accompanied by a variance.”

Germain added that the county requested a written explanation as to why the ZBA did not take action on the need for a use variance. He said Riccelli’s representatives sent a letter May 22 stating that they did not believe the referral “was a determination by the code officer because it was not signed by the codes enforcement officer.”

Germain also noted that Director of Code Enforcement Richard Hooper had written a letter Jan. 28, 2015, stating that Riccelli’s site plan had been denied because “it was not an approvable use within the zone.”

Hooper reaffirmed that opinion to the planning board.

“In my opinion, based on the current codes, it is not an approved use in that zone,” Hooper said.

Germain said Riccelli can appeal the determination at the ZBA to try to gain the use variance, but Gilberti said he was not yet sure what his client’s course of action would be.

“I have to say I’m surprised by what occurred tonight,” Gilberti said. “In my opinion, it’s a very, very, very sad day for everybody who owns a business in the town of Cicero.”