To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
(Editor’s Note: Garry Mannor, who owns a 45-acre wine grape farm on the Old Mission Peninsula, recently wrote a letter to the Agricultural Advisory Committee, outlining how Ordinance Amendment 201 and changes within the Township have affected his farm. “Breaking even or losing money each year is not a good business plan,” he says. Read on for his thoughts. -jb)
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Keep the Gazette Going.
Dear Agricultural Committee,
My name is Garry Mannor. I own a 45-acre wine grape farm on the Old Mission Peninsula. I bought the first 20 acres in 2000. Our business plan was to grow grapes and start a winery. In 2000, the requirements for a winery were 20 acres. Soon these requirements changed, and the winery land requirements increased to 40 acres to open a winery.
In response to these changes, an additional 25 acres was purchased to comply with the new requirements. This was an additional cost that was unplanned and not anticipated when this process started back in 2000.
The additional costs needed to purchase more land had a direct impact on our ability to start building a winery. Capital that was flagged for the construction and product inventory reserves had to be diverted to the purchase of more land and not towards the building blocks of a successful winery business.
In 2019, we submitted surveys, winery plans and paperwork to Peninsula Township to obtain our winery permit. Over the next three years, we ran into continual new changes and requirements from the Township. We had everything covered and were waiting on a wastewater permit from EGLE when the Township again changed the rules through Ordinance Amendment 201. (View the Amendment here. -jb)
I contacted the Township and requested that we be grandfathered into the original “Right to Farm” for a winery with indoor and outdoor tasting and retail sales based on the previous 40-acre total. This was based on our PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) contract that allowed for the winery and tasting facility built on PDR land.
I was informed by (former Peninsula Township Planner) Jenn Cram that the PDR contract was no longer enforceable due to the changes of Amendment 201, which would override the Township’s previous PDR contract. The Township took the stand that they could just cancel or override their previous contract without our agreement.
When the PDR Agreement was made between Jack Holmes and the Township, it was with the understanding that a winery with a tasting room and retail sales could be built and operate on the farm. Bern Kroupa also worked on the agreement with the Township on the Holmes PDR to ensure that a winery was allowed. I was involved, as the Kroupas and I were working to buy the Holmes farm together, which we did.
Had there ever been a concern that a winery and tasting room with retail sales would not be allowed, we either wouldn’t have sold the development rights or not purchased the Holmes farm. As stated previously, we have invested a large sum of money planting and raising grapes. With the Township disallowing our right to a winery, tasting room and retail sales, they have negated any positive effects of selling the development rights and have put us in a position of loss.
I had originally been very positive on the PDR program when it was used properly and helped to support the farmers. For some reason, the previous Township leadership changed the approach to PDR land and have somehow devalued the land and made it more difficult to profit from the land as a farmer. This was not the original intention.
I do understand that some people who work in or for the Township have purposely worked to use the PDR program to devalue the land cost so they can capitalize on an inexpensive way to purchase property for themselves or their clients. By disallowing wineries, changing the rules that were originally agreed to, or making it so difficult for a winery to operate, these people seem to have used the PDR program to benefit themselves through their positions of power and influence at the Township. This is again not right.
We have approximately $2 million invested into the land, which includes vines, equipment and overall operating expenses for the 40-acre grape farm. The changes implemented within Amendment 201, along with our total current acreage, only support our ability to grow and sell grapes within a commodity market channel. Selling grapes through a singular commodity channel is subject to volatile markets and is not a feasible option for long term success and continued grape farming.
To become a viable business, our farm needs to be able to diversify the selling channels. Breaking even or losing money each year is not a good business plan. The new requirements within Amendment 201 now mandate that we must have 60 acres to pursue a winery permit. That means we need to purchase more land and find the capital to support that purchase, while we are only able to sell our grapes through a commodity market that doesn’t support long term financial growth.
We are met with the same scenario again — the need to purchase more land to meet the new requirements to only find more changes down the road. It is a never-ending cycle where we question if the Township really wants farmers to be successful business owners and to keep our beautiful surroundings that are filled with vineyards, orchards and wineries.
Currently, we have looked at selling the farm. Unfortunately, the buyers we talk with are only interested in the farm at low cost and if there is an ability to have a winery. The buyers we have talked with indicate that without a winery, the farm is not an economical investment.
We have had two sales canceled, as the price the buyers were willing to pay would have resulted in a large loss in our overall investment. Every party that we have talked with are also concerned with how often the goal posts keep moving regarding the Township requirements to start a winery, and they are troubled with investing in a farm on the Old Mission Peninsula.
I do not understand why some of the elected officials in the Township continue to put out misnomers and misinformation on wineries. I believe current and future farms on the Old Mission Peninsula will rely on a prosperous winery industry, which in turn will support other types of farms and agricultural business.
The years the cherry industry has left may be limited, and soon we may see no cherries on the Peninsula. The apple industry is also in decline. Wineries can provide for a community where all agricultural products have a better chance to survive and prosper.
The Township is doing a great job of preserving farmland, but is negatively pushing farmers out. In the not-too-distant future, we will lose the beautiful landscape of orchards and vineyards and be left with non-tax generating scrub brush and weeds.
I have heard that the Township is concerned with the traffic and possible “drunk driving” from the wineries. I have talked with a local deputy regarding drunk drivers and was informed that no winery visitor has been arrested for drunk driving.
Regarding traffic, I spoke with the manager at Mission Point Lighthouse and was informed that while the Lighthouse no longer maintains a sign-in book, in 2024 nearly 100,000 people toured the Lighthouse. This did not include the people that just visited the park for the trails and beach. It was estimated that up to 200,000 people visit the park each year. This is a lot of traffic which the Township supports and profits from.
The Township is currently moving forward with a new boat launch at Kelley Park in the village of Old Mission, teaming up with Traverse City and surrounding municipalities to have the launch installed. This boat launch will serve the local community, but it will also bring in a substantial amount of additional traffic up Center Road.
Add in the amount of traffic from people looking at blossoms, orchards and vineyards, and it’s clear that the traffic is already here and will continue to grow regardless. The Township seems to believe that what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. There appears to be a conflict of interests.
I would hope that Peninsula Township would realize that the largest landowners — the farmers and wineries — will continue to make the Old Mission Peninsula the magical place it is. I hope the Township will start supporting and working with farmers for success, rather than adding polices that will drive farmers out and not provide a place for young farmers to start farming.
Sincerely,
Garry Mannor
Also Read…
SUPPORT YOUR INDEPENDENT LOCAL NEWSPAPER: I started Old Mission Gazette in 2015 because I felt a calling to provide the Old Mission Peninsula community with local news. After decades of writing for newspapers and magazines like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Family Circle and Ladies' Home Journal, I really just wanted to write about my own community where I grew up on a cherry farm and raised my own family. So I started my own newspaper.
Because Old Mission Gazette is a "Reader Supported Newspaper" -- meaning it exists because of your financial support -- I hope you'll consider tossing a few bucks our way if I mention your event, your business, your organization or your news item, or if you simply love reading about what's happening on the OMP. In a time when local news is becoming a thing of the past, supporting an independent community newspaper is more important now than ever. Thank you so much for your support! -Jane Boursaw, Editor/Publisher, Old Mission Gazette
To keep the Gazette going, click here to make a donation.
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
201 has created an environment requiring a minimum of $5 million to start a winery. This eliminates local farmers and creates the need for additional uses, weddings, food, etc, to support the large investment.
Gary
You are unfortunately right on the mark.
The farmers tried to tell the township that 201 was anti farmer. But the township officials chose to ignore the farmers in order to cater to the PTP noise makers. Their name is a misnomer. They are destroying the farm character of the peninsula, not protecting it. Their whole approach along with the township is to create a protected upper class fiefdom.
A five acre minimum, for example, ensures that no middle class folks or lower income people can afford to purchase or build a house here. We live in the invisible gated community. Yes, workmen and ag workers come here to work. But god forbid you should want to live here. Look around at the average age here. Young people are not here unless they are doctors or lawyers.
This community needs to take a long term view to save farms and address other shortcomings. After 18 years here, sadly I don’t see it happening. Maybe the ag committee will push a solution forward. But prepare for pushback from the non farmers who have their piece of heaven and don’t want to share it. They like the look of the farms but have no understanding that farming is changing and farmers out here need novel solutions to continue.
A change to 201 would be a step in the right direction.
For years I have been using my three minutes before the Township Board making these points. So they can’t say they were not aware of these problems. In addition, when 201 came in force I asked the Township Assessor if my PDR land would be revalued down as a taking had taken place. I did not receive an answer.
It could also be argued that the PDR is a contract and that any PDR contract made before the changed ordinance should follow the ordinance in effect at the time of the contract. I have thought about testing this in court, but after seeing how long the winery case has taken, at this time I have decided to look at other options.
There is no doubt in my mind that changes are taking place on the Peninsula and not for the better. Once farmers realize that the good times are not coming back, they will cease being famers and those with development rights will become developers.
What is interesting is the ourTwp tried to use Amendment 201 to have the Winery lawsuit thrown out due to the fact that 201 made contested activities and situations illegal per the modified zoning ordinance. The Judge said no to that argument. So why then does not the original PDR agreement still remain in effect after 201? Also what provisions of the PDR contract state how it can be changed/modified?