To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
For years, a battle has been brewing over the placement of a dock and the number of boat hoists that the Hidden Ridge Condo Association off East Shore Road is allowed to install in East Bay. The conflict involves a rift with neighboring beach owner Port of Old Mission, a lawsuit filed by Hidden Ridge against Peninsula Township, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
At the center of the conflict is the question of who has control over the bottomlands of the bay. The Township says they do, and regulates docks and boat hoists in the Zoning Ordinance; specifically, Section 7.4.2 Shared Waterfront Ownership, which specifies requirements for any waterfront that is to be used by more than one family.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Keep the Gazette Going.
But Hidden Ridge says the bottomlands are outside the boundaries of the Township’s jurisdiction. They say the jurisdiction ends on the shore below the ordinary high water mark.
Five Boat Hoists
In a “Notice of Compliance Concerns” letter dated June 5, 2025 to Hidden Ridge from Township Enforcement Officer Dave Sanger (the sixth written notice of violation), he writes that their Special Use Permit allows for a total of five boat hoists for the entirety of the Hidden Ridge Association (one hoist per 50 feet of shoreline, located as near as possible to the center of the parcel). Hidden Ridge currently has 21 boat hoists with nine finger docks.
“The Township is aware that Hidden Ridge has obtained a permit from the Department of Army Corps of Engineers for the seasonal installation of a dock and 10 finger piers and 17 boat hoists,” writes Sanger.
“I understand that Hidden Ridge has previously taken the position that the Army Corps permit supersedes any Township regulations. To the contrary, the permit as issued contains the limitation ‘this permit does not obviate the need to obtain Federal, state, or local authorizations as required by law.'”
Read Sanger’s full letter here.
Outside the Township’s Boundaries
At the June 10 Township Board meeting, Jeff Spencer of Hidden Ridge read a letter submitted to the Township by Hidden Ridge’s attorney, Jon Bylsma of Varnum Law.
“Initially as we previously asserted, we disagree that the Association is in violation of the Township Ordinance that purports to regulate land use outside the Township’s jurisdiction,” wrote Bylsma. “It seems obvious and not necessary to say, but the Township cannot regulate activities or land use outside of its boundaries, which includes the bottomlands of Lake Michigan below the ordinary high water mark.”
Listen to Spencer’s full comment/Bylsma’s full letter about 25 minutes into the video of the meeting on the Township’s YouTube channel here. (Note: The videos are only available for 30 days following the meetings.)
At that meeting, the Township Board voted unanimously to issue two tickets to Hidden Ridge Association to cease and desist, one for violation of their Special Use Permit and one for violation of the Township’s Zoning Ordinance.
Township Supervisor Maura Sanders noted, “If this goes to litigation, it will affect all Great Lakes waterfront owners in the State of Michigan, because it’s ultimately going against what the Army Corps of Engineers has said.”
A Bit of History
On June 20, 2022, Hidden Ridge filed a Complaint through their attorney W. Dane Carey of Kuhn Rogers against Peninsula Township, which stated, “The Township lacks authority to regulate the Great Lakes bottomlands because the bottomlands are outside the Township’s physical boundaries and the zoning regulations are preempted by state and federal law governing the subject matter at issue.”
As noted above, Peninsula Township’s Zoning Ordinance outlines regulations for docks and boat hoists, but Hidden Ridge contends that the Township’s jurisdiction stops at the ordinary high water mark.
“Our lawsuit is challenging the Township’s authority to regulate in West Bay and East Bay and the bottomlands of the lake,” wrote Carey in an email sent to Old Mission Gazette on June 21, 2022.
“The Township’s zoning ordinance restricts the type, quantity, and extent of docking, boat mooring, and other activities occurring beyond the shoreline. We contend that the Township’s boundaries stop at the ordinary high-water mark. We also contend that the State of Michigan and U.S. Government have joint, exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the Great Lakes, and that State and Federal law therefore preempt the Township’s local, conflicting zoning regulations.”
If the lawsuit is successful, wrote Carey, “the portions of the Township’s zoning ordinance that regulate use of the bottomlands or the surface water of the lakes will all be rendered invalid, and the Township will lose its ability to enforce any such regulations in the entire Township.”
Read the June 20, 2022 Complaint here. This litigation was dismissed in 2023 without prejudice, “so the parties could discuss a new ordinance,” said Jeff Spencer at the recent Township Board meeting, reading from Attorney Jon Bylsma’s letter to the Township. The Association proposed a new ordinance but was ignored, he wrote.
“This Is An Unsafe Situation”
Prior to the Complaint being filed, Sally Erickson, on behalf of the East Beach Association and Port of Old Mission, for which she is the developer, sent a letter dated Oct. 21, 2021 to then-Township Supervisor Rob Manigold. On Nov. 18, 2022, the same letter was sent to then-Township Supervisor Isaiah Wunsch. Read the letter here.
Erickson noted that the Hidden Ridge Planned Unit Development (PUD), which was approved in 2001, originally included 120 feet of East Bay frontage, which over time was expanded to 237 feet of frontage. With the Zoning Ordinance’s regulations of one boat for 50 feet of frontage, she said this would allow Hidden Ridge to have four boat hoists.
“Our concern is for the safety of our members, their families, and their guests,” wrote Erickson. “The current use by our neighbors of the Hidden Ridge PUD Subdivision is selfish on two levels – unneighborly and erosively destructive to the beach and surrounding beaches.”
She added that if Hidden Ridge is allowed a dock, it should be centered on their frontage per the Township’s Zoning Ordinance, and that their boats cause extensive wake, endangering those on Port of Old Mission’s neighboring frontage. She also cited shoreline destruction caused by Hidden Ridge.
“Hidden Ridge has clear cut their beach area and has had significant erosion, as a result of this stripping of vegetation, and the wake abuse of power boat traffic that 20+ boats inflict on the shoreline,” wrote Erickson. “They have consistently brought in semi loads/trains of beach sand to compensate for the destructive impact that their lack of beach stewardship has inflicted on the shoreline. It leaves one wondering if the roadbed for East Shore could be compromised.”
At the May 13, 2025 Township Board meeting, Erickson read a formal complaint into the record, noting that the ordinance rules should be enforced.
“Do we have to have an incident to prove our point?” she said. “You have allowed this abuse of the rules and the beach front. This behavior has diminished the value of neighboring property owners beach with this inappropriate marina … We have children, kayaks, paddle boards – this is an unsafe situation.”
No Authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers
On June 2, 2025, a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers was sent to Hidden Ridge, noting that their dock, boat hoists and shoreline changes lacked authorization from the Corps of Engineers.
“As you are aware, in Lake Michigan, as in all navigable waters of the United States, any construction or discharge of dredged and/or fill material must be authorized by the Department of the Army,” wrote Donald T. Reinke, Chief Compliance and Enforcement, Regulatory Branch.
Hidden Ridge’s options for resolving the matter include returning the structures to the permitted design or apply for after-the-fact authorization for the installation of the structures in their present configuration, which would then require a review and environmental analysis by the Army Corps.
In Violation of the Township Ordinance
The letter also noted, “We are aware Peninsula Township considers Hidden Ridge’s installation of docks and hoists in Lake Michigan to be in violation of a Township zoning ordinance. As noted in the conditions of the attached permit, a Corps of Engineers permit does not obviate Hidden Ridge’s need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law.”
Additionally, “Rather than seek ATF (after the fact) authorization for work that will not meet Peninsula Township’s zoning requirements, the Hidden Ridge Association may wish to request authorization for the installation of docks and hoists in Lake Michigan in a manner that complies with Peninsula Township’s ordinances.”
Read the Army Corps of Engineers’ full letter here.
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.
Neighbors-
As a real estate lawyer with 45 years’ experience & an OMP resident, I spoke at the April Town Hall session and made three points:
1. The well-settled rule, the so-called “Black Letter Law” over which there can be no dispute, is that the township’s jurisdiction ends at the Mean High Water Mark of a Navigable Waterway, the same place the property owners’ ownership rights end. These waters are under the Federal Government’s jurisdiction, not that of local municipal governments. I believe there is no SCOTUS opinion anywhere to the contrary, thus the Black Letter Law must prevail.
2. Controversially, OM Township has made a determination to “wade into” the murky waters of the assertion of jurisdiction OUT OVER A NAVIGABLE WATERWAY, by itself a controversial stance placing it in the Top <1% of waterfront jurisdictions attempting to do so while also tempting their legal fate that could establish the law as strictly prohibiting local governmental overreach out into the bay. I contend this is an overreach, unneighborly and something only a Supreme Court can decide. Consequently, the posturing back & forth by our elected offfcials attempting to justify a broadening of the reach of their jurisdiction STARTS from a position where the township is well out over its skis. SHOULD the township do this even if it could (which has never been determined). The lack of sound municipal judgment exhibited in the winery litigation imbroglio is a ready reminder that ”wisdom” is not its forte.
3. I challenge the wisdom of stirring up such a dispute given how contentious it is among neighbors whether the OM Township can or cannot enforce what I believe until a court rules otherwise is an illegal restriction on the use by adjacent property owners of their waterfronts.
It is a shame to see our township officials using their platforms in such a divisive way.
Todd J. Anson
OMP Resident
By your definition, the Ordinance ends with a dock from the high water mark. This means that property owners could extend their docks and hoists laterally across their neighbor’s frontage as far as they please. That’s where your wisdom ends and the ship sinks.
I’m curious what other townships do. I’m guessing most don’t have as much frontage as we do.
Imbroglio. What a great word! I admit I had to look it up and that doesn’t happen often. Thanks!
Howard & Jane,
It is not my “wisdom.” “The law is the law.” Sorry you don’t appreciate it. Oftentimes, it is said, “the law is an ass.” Still the law. The Great Lakes are governed by Federal Law & the principal concern protected is navigability. We don’t own the lakebed. It’s held in “public trust.” That’s the law.
OM Township’s attempting to extend its jurisdiction out onto the Great Lake places it in the “minuscule minority” of jurisdictions with the temerity to do because the law has been clear that their jurisdiction does not extend out over the lake. Any foray otherwise is legally untested- a stretch, but any & all measures. Perhaps OMT wants another legal debacle that the mishandled winery lawsuit, but, I doubt so. This is a similar “can of worms” legally. And a misstep apart from the bad law surrounding the controversial proposal.
so, if I own 50′ of frontage and own 2 boats I’m out? BS! call the federal Government that controls anything beyone the ordinary high water mark. same for owners that yell at people waling the beach.