The Ocean Shores City Council has decided to continue to study the need for a continuing moratorium on any new marijuana-related business, retail, cooperative growing or processing operation, despite already having a Planning Commission recommendation to allow one more store already licensed by the state.

That was the the consensus after the council on March 13 failed to get enough votes to pass a measure that would have barred any additional marijuana outlet or business, as well as any growing or processing business from operating. That measure was supported by Bob Peterson and Lisa Griebel, but was opposed by a majority of the council, including Holly Plackett, who urged more study on the issue by the council.

While the Planning Commission also recommended against any growing or processing operations be allowed, the City Council decided it wanted more information before taking further votes.

“It’s a tough decision, but I think we really should take the time and measure the impacts that we’re going to have on the community if we’re going to continue to expand these type of businesses,” Plackett said. Plackett as a past Planning Commission member opposed the current marijuana business in the city.

The council did take public comment on the issue.

Delvin Zimmerman, who owns the building where the existing marijuana store, Have a Heart, operates, argued there should be some restrictions on the distance a marijuana store should be from playgrounds or other businesses where children are likely to be.

“I didn’t come here just to retire. I raise my family here,” Zimmerman said, urging the council to make a careful decision.

Former councilman John Schroeder said he saw “no added value to this town in having another marijuana store.”

“There are no plus sides to it,” Schroeder said. “The little bit of money that (the city) is getting from marijuana stores is not taking care of the police problems in this town.”

“This is a retired town, a tourist town, and I think this sets a bad example,” he added.

Susan Conniry, a member of the Planning Commission, said she was in favor of allowing a second retail store, but had no problem with the city adding restrictions to its location.

“Though our share of funds is not as forthcoming as we would like, the possibility for additional revenue is important, and the city should keep all options open,” Conniry said, pointing out that marijuana is now a “legal, taxable business” with several bills pending in the Legislature that would increase revenue for the cities.

Conniry also was in favor of more discussion about allowing production and processing, as well as medical co-op growing.

Richard Wills, another resident, said marijuana was not a “gateway drug” and contended it was a “less harmful, debilitating drug than alcohol.”

“When I see the prejudice against marijuana, it disturbs me because it is emotion-driven and not fact-driven,” Wills said.

Lillian Broadbent urged the council to take a closer look at the Planning Commission recommendation.

“Their decision was to let the marketplace drive the number of retail shops, and to allow one more and not allow any other use,” Broadbent said.

Resident Bill Vandenbush said the real issue was “we have not doubled the customer base. We have the same customer base we had a year ago, or two years ago when that marijuana store opened.”

Opening another store would bring in more business, Vandenbush argued, it would just divide the business “we already have.”

“I would oppose opening another store until the customer base comes up to where we really need two stores,” Vandenbush said.

The city’s current six-month moratorium has been in place since January, but Mayor Crystal Dingler noted the council could choose to end it before that time. It applies, she added, to any marijuana business.

“What you can do is to leave the moratorium in place, while you chose not to have another store,” Dingler said. The final policy would have to be spelled out in changing the city’s code to not allow another store.

“If you choose to have another store, you could chose to end the moratorium for retail sales and the rest of the moratorium would stay in place,” she explained as to the options for moving forward. Other limitations could be where a store would be allowed to be located.

“If you want to put any limitations in place on where those stores can be sited, that’s up to you as well,” Dingler told the council.