WOBURN - Despite testimony from a health official from Boston brought in by Cummings Properties, the City Council Tuesday night remained firm in its stance that it wants specific regulations before it allows low-level biotechnology businesses in Office Park (OP) zones.

After a hearing that lasted a little more than an hour at its meeting on Tuesday, the council voted to refer to the city's Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) a request from Cummings to allow research and testing facilities in one building at its TradeCenter 128 complex.

The public hearing was also continued until the council's next meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 2. The ZORC, which is comprised of Planning Board and City Council members, is scheduled to meet on Thursday (7 p.m.) at City Hall.

While most council members are not generally opposed to biotech uses at TradeCenter 128, some said they wanted to enact regulations that ensure the safety of the residents in the area.

"I hope this doesn't seem like a standoff, because it's not," City Council President Charles Doherty told Cummings officials.

In what has become a somewhat confusing scenario, Cummings is seeking permission from the council for research and testing at TradeCenter 128, the new office building off Sylvan Road which is only about one-third full, according to Cummings Properties President and CEO Dennis Clarke.

However, the Planning Board voted last month to deny Cummings' bid to lift a restriction on research and testing that was imposed by the board when it originally granted the permit for the facility in 2006. Cummings then filed an appeal in land court that is pending.

Meanwhile, Cummings pressed forward with its petition with the council - which has jurisdiction over research and testing - and was buoyed by an opinion from the city's legal contractor that stated the council could approve the uses for TradeCenter 128.

At the council's meeting on Oct. 21, Cummings announced it would limit biotech uses to the two lowest levels - bio-safety 1 and 2 risk categories as defined by the National Institute of Health - to only the building closest to the highway and farthest from residences.

Bio-safety 1 and 2

As another expert from the Mass. Biotechnology Council had at the Oct. 21 meeting, Anthony Gemmellaro, the Director of Biological Safety for the Boston Dept. of Public Health, testified about the relative safety of bio-safety levels 1 and 2.

Bio-safety level 1 is generally classified as a facility with "no known or minimal potential hazards," which are likened to an operation that might be seen "in a high school science class."

Bio-safety level 2 consists of working with "organisms that are routinely found in the community," at places like a hospital or a veterinary center.

"There haven't been any major spills or people coming down with infections or diseases," said Gemmellaro.

Upon questioning by various council members, however, Gemmellaro said Boston is mostly concerned with high-hazard uses - defined as bio-safety levels 3 and 4 - and the lesser uses are self-regulatory and are not required to be inspected regularly by any agency.

"Boston doesn't really care (about bio-safety levels 1 and 2)," said Gemmellaro.

Ward 5 Alderman Darlene Mercer-Bruen asked why hospitals are subject to more rigid regulations, including "lots of different inspections" than an ordinary bio-safety level 2 use.

"Gosh knows, there's got to be things in hospitals that cause problems," she said.

Gemmellaro said the difference is there are "a lot of unknowns in a hospital," as opposed to a research lab, which is a "controlled environment."

Ward 6 Alderman Michael Raymond asked Gemmellaro about the possibility there are incidents that are not reported by the bio-tech firms.

"It's a possibility ... but I don't know of any," he replied.

Cummings attorney Craig Ziady reminded the council that bio-tech uses make up only a fraction of what is allowed under a research and testing definition, which could also include other fields like electronics, computers or alternative fuels.

Clarke said Cummings already leases space to more than 100 firms in the "life sciences" realm, "with no history of problems."

"If they do (cause problems), we wouldn't want them in our buildings," said Clarke.

Mercer-Bruen reiterated the council's stance from a committee meeting on Monday that Cummings' petition gives the city an opportunity to regulate bio-tech uses.

"Cummings has brought something that will be a benefit for them and for the city ... but the comfort level with level 1 and level 2 needs to be greater," said Mercer-Bruen. "There's a reason why the Planning Board voted the way they did (to restrict research and testing at TradeCenter 128)."

Ward 7 Raymond Drapeau said he is "comfortable" with the petition as it was presented by Cummings, but acknowledged too many of his colleagues had reservations and if the matter had been put to a vote last night, it would fail.

"This is a way of giving Cummings a way to be competitive with our neighbors," said Drapeau, citing Waltham, Burlington and Lexington as communities which have recruited bio-tech firms.

"It's an industry that provides good wages and good jobs," said Drapeau. "When a building is empty, it's not serving the taxpayers."

Doherty said he did not want to put the council in an adversarial position with the Planning Board by approving a petition that counters the board's original imposition of a restriction and subsequent affirmation, particularly while Cummings has taken the board to court.

"If it was the other way around, I wouldn't want another board to undermine our authority," said Doherty.

Public hearing

Paul Meaney, Executive Director of the Woburn Business Association, echoed Ziady's comments about research and testing having a much broader scope than just bio-tech uses, though he noted he had no reservations about welcoming more bio-tech to the city.

"There are already numerous places in this city that go on every day with research and testing and medical," said Meaney. "Don't get hung up on bio-tech."

Speaking in opposition was Elm Street resident Gerald McCabe, who urged the council to examine the Planning Board's rationale for specifically citing research and testing as a use that should not be allowed at TradeCenter 128.

"The vote was 7-0 not to go forward with research and testing," said McCabe.

If the council chooses to move forward, McCabe suggested research and testing facilities should be limited to no more than 25 percent of the building, along with other oversight measures that give him a level of comfort which he does not now have.

"We need clarification of what can and cannot go in there," said McCabe. "This was designed for (office park), and the neighbors in 2006 were told that was going to be an office park. It's not the city's fault Cummings can't fill the building."

Robert Boissenneault, of Granny Smith Lane, asked what the chances were of a future expansion to bio-safety level 3 uses.

"Zero, as long as I'm elected," said Alderman at-large Paul Denaro.

Boissenneault said Cummings "got the building under a false premise," that it would be offices, and is now driven by "the all-mighty dollar."

"It really has to end here," said Boissenneault.