While the looming specter of a moratorium may have vanished, the tug-of-war over marijuana production and whether impacts of the newly created industry warrant a new regimen of local land-use rules remains anything but resolved.

In a 3-0 decision, the San Juan County Council voted without dissent Jan. 12 to disengage from its pursuit of a would-be moratorium that by design targeted the processing of permits for marijuana-related production facilities. By default, however, that same moratorium may have also applied to the construction of any type of greenhouse, regardless of whatever crop it was intended to house, from tomatoes to basil, to bok choy.

Enforcement would have proved problematic, said Councilman Jamie Stephens, District 3, noting that construction of a so-called “temporary” greenhouse does not require a permit under existing regulations.

“A moratorium on something that doesn’t have any regulations means nothing,” said Stephens, who, six months ago, joined fellow councilman Bob Jarman, District 1, in moving discussion of a moratorium into the drafting of a possible ordinance.

The vote followed nearly 90 minutes of public testimony from a crowd that the council hearing room proved to small by itself to contain. Support for agricultural, in general, and for marijuana production in particular, was abundant from the 30-or-so people who testified, as was the call for tighter restrictions on a laundry list of impacts from fledgling industry.

Those unable to find a seat or room to stand watched a video-feed and listened in from an adjacent conference room on proceedings of the first of two council-led workshops focused on the regulatory ins-and-outs, ups and downs, and the nuances, hurdles and economic promise of local marijuana production. The second workshop is slated for Jan. 26.

In initiating the vote to strike down the greenhouse moratorium, Councilman Rick Hughes, District-2, outspoken and steadfast in opposition to the would-be legislation, included that the council also forgo pursuit of any moratorium regarding voter-approved state Initiative 502, which legalized the cultivation, production, sale and recreational use of marijuana by adults.

That proviso passed as well.

The state Liquor Control Board, the agency tasked with implementation and regulation of I-502, has so far issued a total of 16 licenses to marijuana grow operations in San Juan County, according to county Agricultural Resources Committee Coordinator Peggy Bill. That total consists of four Tier 1 facilities (less than 2,000 square feet), nine Tier 2 (maximum 7,000 square feet) and three Tier 3 (maximum 21,000 square feet) and together cover roughly four acres of landscape. That total, Bill added, does not account for the recent shutdown of a Tier 3 facility on San Juan Island, San Juan Sungrown, which eliminates one Tier 3 facility and about one acre off the landscape.

The facilities come in an assortment of shapes, sizes and structures, and the amount of resources required by each are presumably unique, she said.

Jarman said that his intent, all along, has been to craft a set of “reasonable rules” that address impacts of marijuana production, but not at the expense of other crops cultivated in a greenhouse. He said such impacts, like noise, odor, illumination, water and power usage, and size or scale of an operation, could be addressed more effectively if marijuana was treated differently than other agricultural products and that permits for its production facilities had a separate pathway for approval, such as requirement of a conditional-use permit.

“When we put greenhouses into the moratorium language I think it confused a lot of people and it just went down the wrong rabbit hole,” Jarman said. “My intent all along was to try and look at the marijuana issue.”

Though the moratorium is off the table, the potential of a new regulatory regime for marijuana grow operations is not. The council is expected to receive updated information from county planning staff and agricultural resources committee at the Jan. 26 workshop.