The Ocean Shores Planning Commission has voted once again to send the issue of regulating future marijuana businesses, grow operations and collective gardens back to the City Council.

“We have no other recommendation than what we already have sent,” said Planning Commission member Greg Noble in casting a vote to stand by an Aug. 23 recommendation to follow the existing state law and regulations regarding retail sales businesses, but to prohibit any commercial processing or production operations.

Commission members said they believed they already had completed their review of the city’s role in overseeing future marijuana businesses within city limits after the City Council last month imposed a continuing six-month moratorium on such businesses, clinics or co-ops.

Before the latest vote Sept. 13, Planning Commission member Susan Conniry asked: “When is a recommendation done?”

“If the council doesn’t like the recommendation, can they send it back to us?” Conniry asked.

On Aug. 22 at the regular City Council meeting, a new six-month moratorium was enacted, and one of the reasons cited for the moratorium was the contention that the Planning Commission had not completed its review of the new rule changes and the impact such businesses would have.

The marijuana measure, Ordinance No. 970, imposes a new six-month moratorium prohibiting the production or processing of marijuana, as well as any new recreational or medicinal cannabis stores, clinics or marijuana collective gardens or co-ops not licensed by the state Liquor Control Board prior to 2016.

Under the changes in the law, groups of four medicinal marijuana users may form a co-op to grow their own supply.

Planning Commission Chairwoman Cathey Peterson told members that when she brought their original decision to Mayor Crystal Dingler, the mayor asked her to specifically return and look at the issue of where a future retail or recreational marijuana store might be located and what some of the zoning or licensing regulatory issues might arise.

“What she would like us to look at — briefly — is a possible location for said store,” Peterson said. She noted that the state Liquor Control Board, which oversees and licenses retail marijuana businesses, has “kind of backed off on some of the distances it can be from places.

“It still it has to be 1,000 feet from a school and 1,000 feet from a daycare (under state law). Do we have any suggestions about where, as a group, we think it would be nice to locate” a new store? Peterson asked.

Commission members said the only apparent issue was whether they had any concerns about the distance between stores, and no one voiced any further concern than what the state already requires.

The vote to once again send the recommendation back to the mayor and council was unanimous.