OLD MISSION PENINSULA —Community groups and wineries on Old Mission Peninsula are working towards a settlement to their years-long legal dispute. Part of the settlement includes the township not having to pay the full $50 million debt.
In 2020, 11 old mission wineries sued Peninsula Township for unconstitutional ordinances. They were initially seeking a settlement of less than 30 thousand dollars, which the township rejected.
The wineries could collect the 50 million dollar judgment at any time.
The township would need to drop some of the most restrictive ordinances they have on things like noise regulations and capacity limits.
In exchange, wineries would lower the townships’ debt obligation
But until a settlement, the future of Old Mission Peninsula hangs in the balance.
“That bill for me is going to be $25,000. Boom. Throw that down,” said Fred Swaffer, a member of the newly formed Citizen Coalition of Old Mission.
Another member of the coalition, Thomas Menzel, says he knows of potential homebuyers who have already been discouraged from joining the community.
“I’ve also talked to some realtors and just last week who had two real estate deals fall through, had strong purchase agreements, Menzel said. “And once they found out about the court case, they pulled it.”
If there is a settlement, the $50 million price tag will go down. But the township must agree to these changes:
• Adoption of noise standards limiting outdoor sound after 9 p.m. Sunday-Thursday and 11 p.m. Friday-Saturday.
• Capacity limits based on Michigan building and fire codes, not arbitrary caps.
• Permission for normal agricultural business activities, including food service and merchandise sales.
• Clear standards for events, tents, and outdoor amenities that balance community enjoyment with neighborhood peace.
“Those damages represent how much harm and injury the winery has had over five years,” said Chris Baldyga, co-founder of the 2 Lads Winery. “And many of them have been operating for 30, 20, 50 years. So they’ve been essentially restricted that whole time. So the damages really are much more.”
With that in mind, wineakers on the suit, like Baldyga, think the terms of the settlement are fair.
“It’s in line with everything that the court prohibited the township from enforcing,” Baldyga said. “And for rules set forth with MDARD and with the Michigan liquor control. And almost all of those points are fair, reasonable things.”
That compromise is welcome news to a group of concerned citizens who want to help both sides find common ground.
“Currently, the situation is: it’s all in litigation, Menzel said. “And, you have winners and losers in litigation. We’d like everybody to be winners.”
Swaffer agrees,
“We also need to start to be neighbors again,” Swaffer said. “You know, that’s something that we’ve kind of lost touch with.”
Full details of the settlement have not been released yet. When they are, community input is going to be vital for the township to decide whether to accept the deal or not.
