Residents warn against biotech and biohazard uncertainty in ID‑6 draft

Several residents told the Planning & Zoning Commission they are worried the ID‑6 language is ambiguous about biotechnology and potential biohazards, and they urged either stricter prohibitions or that those uses be treated as conditional so the public and Planning & Zoning can review them.

Sandy McIntosh asked whether the code would allow labs 'testing anthrax or Ebola or hantavirus' and urged the commission to make advanced manufacturing and research and development conditional uses. She said residents fear leaving such determinations solely to staff. Another commenter, Denise Hemmer, urged measurable standards and said 'ID‑6 should serve as a true transition between residential and industrial uses.' Several commenters also noted late posting of updated code text limited their ability to review the materials before the meeting.

In response, the commission and staff drafted and agreed to a condition to add intent language addressing biohazards (the working draft stated that uses within ID‑6 'do not include the use, storage, production or emission of biohazard materials'), and to require applicants to demonstrate, using currently acceptable testing methods, that they do not create a measurable increase in hazardous emissions to neighboring properties. Staff and commissioners debated whether to 'prohibit' or 'minimize' biohazard materials and settled on minimizing plus proper disposal language in the condition.