To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
(Editor’s Note: OMP resident Marty Lagina maps out five reasons that demonstrate why short-term rentals are currently allowed in the Ag District on the Old Mission Peninsula. Read on for his thoughts. -jb)
Even a cursory glance at history leads to the inescapable conclusion that the worst violators of human rights, from the annoying to the truly atrocious, are always … Governments. Governments of all types. One of the main reasons the United States became great was because of the rule of law as implemented by due process — not because the abused and beleaguered taxpayer must follow the law. BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO SO.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
Which brings me to Peninsula Township.
Peninsula Township has basically concluded that short-term rentals (STRs) are illegal in the township on all lands, including those lands zoned Agricultural (“the Ag District”). They have recently enacted truly enormous fines to enforce this conclusion. The problem is that Peninsula Township is wrong.
They did not follow correct process and are making an unreasonable interpretation of their own ordinance. The rule of law has been ignored. Here are five reasons that demonstrate that STRs are currently allowed on Old Mission Peninsula, in the Ag District:
- Peninsula Township has never even held required hearings on this entire issue. They did not follow proper ordinance amendment procedures. They are ignoring the applicable rule of law.
- The Peninsula Township Zoning Ordinance expressly allows STRs in the Ag District.
- Peninsula Township published its determination (in writing) that STRs are allowed in the Ag District.
- Peninsula Township’s attorney agreed completely, that the prohibition against STRs did NOT apply to the Ag District … until in an inexplicable and frankly incomprehensible manner the attorney changed his opinion without any change in the underlying facts.
- See below (for the best reason of all).
With apologies for the length of the following, here is a little background for numbers 1-5:
1. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) hearings that set this all in motion were SPECIFICALLY in regard to residential districts. Furthermore, a ZBA opinion to amend any ordinance is simply NOT following the rule of law. There is a procedure to amend an ordinance. That procedure was not followed. A ZBA opinion does not justify a “clarifying amendment.” Even assuming that the “novel” method the Township used to make STRs illegal is valid, it only applied to the residential districts. It did not address the Ag District. It was explicitly published and discussed as a residential decision and inserted in the residential section of the Peninsula Township Zoning Ordinance as set forth below.
2. 6.2.2.(2)e is the operative clause that was inserted in the Peninsula Township Zoning Ordinance; (the so-called “clarifying amendment”). It sets out that R1A zoning allows rentals of dwellings but restricts said rentals to at least 30 days. R1B zoning, by reference to 6.2.2.(2)e, allows rentals but “subject to all restrictions specified therefore.” R1C zoning says the same. The Ag District however also refers to 6.2.2.(2)e, but it says simply “as allowed.”
See the glaring difference?
Rentals in the Residential Zones are as allowed and restricted. Rentals in the Ag District are simply as allowed – no restrictions. That is what the existing Peninsula Township Zoning Ordinance says. No interpretation is needed. The fact that the Peninsula Township Board doesn’t like STRs in the Ag district and now wants to fine them out of existence simply doesn’t matter. What the law says is the only thing that matters. This is clear enough, but … there is even more…
3. The Township itself published — and as of this writing still publishes — the following (11/16/2021): “Except in the A-1 District the minimum length of time that a dwelling may be rented … is 30 days.” And … even more…
4. In a legal opinion dated February 1, 2010, the then township attorney agreed that there was no time restriction for rentals in the Ag district. Here is what he wrote: “The ZBA minutes indicate that the context of the request concerning short-term rentals was in the residential districts. As a result, the motion that was ultimately passed was based on this request applicable to residential districts … A rental in a district other than a residential district can be any length, provided the district permits single-family dwellings and the use falls within the definition of a single-family dwelling.”
On June 7, 2017, the same attorney reached the opposite conclusion even though no facts had changed in the interim. This is inexplicable and unacceptable at best, and to me, rather suspect and suspicious. I will add that in the convoluted reasoning that the attorney used in 2017 to directly contradict his 2010 opinion, his logic would prohibit STRs AND even second homes on Old Mission Peninsula! This is just nonsense, and an extraordinary reversal based on … well, nothing new. (NOTE: the entirety of both opinions of the attorney can be found online in the March 26, 2025 Town Board Special Meeting packet addition).
5. And the most powerful (and, frankly, astounding) reason that STRs in the Ag district are allowed is … THE TOWNSHIP ITSELF RENTS OUT ITS OWN PROPERTY (ZONED AGRICULTURAL) ON A SHORT-TERM BASIS!
There are extremely valid reasons for analyzing (via proper procedure) whether STRs are perhaps a positive thing in Agricultural Districts. Minimum acreage sizes are much larger than residential lots. Dwellings are required to be much farther apart. Expectations regarding noise are quite different; beleaguered farmers might be able to survive with a little extra seasonal income.
STRs in the Ag District could be subject to reasonable regulations considering (for instance) various uses based on distances to existing or possible neighboring dwellings, etc. In some cases, Agricultural dwellings are as much as 1000 feet or more from neighbors.
Whether STRs in the Ag district are allowed is something that the citizens of Old Mission Peninsula should decide, not the Township Board. The Township Board does not really know what the citizens want, because they have not been properly asked.
The bottom line to the Township Board: JUST FOLLOW THE LAW. Do this correctly. Have Planning Commission and Township Board hearings and citizen input to reach a proper decision regarding STRs on lands zoned Agricultural. Set an example and follow the rules — that’s all that is being asked.
– Marty Lagina, Old Mission Peninsula Resident
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Your analysis is spot on. More importantly you call for a rational common sense approach. All ordinances should be vetted with enough time for folks to weigh in before an ordinance is adopted. Certainly passing an ordinance with $1000s of potential fines should await the full spring population return.
Marty,
I agree with you and commend you for bringing this to light.
“Rule of law”. This is so important for all of us. We can and should do better here on OMP with our government. Thank you Marty for emphasizing this. Practicing Democracy is slow. That is by design so we don’t make mistakes. At times it is painfully slow.
Unfortunately to circumvent the rules our government has short circuited the process in an attempt to move faster or get its way. My observation is at times we govern by bullying. The subject matter here is an example. Marty is correct. The only STR that is illegal is in the R1A zoning district ( and maybe not even that based on one of his points). Early this year the Planning Commission rushed through, followed by the Twp. Board an exorbitant fines schedule ( different and much higher than other zoning violations) based on a “study”. This “study” was referenced as a reason for pushing through this fines ordinance. When questioned on how to obtain this “ study” or to look it over we learned that there actually was no study. Yes they said there was a study but in fact there was not. So an ordinance was passed with no factual data on the subject matter pertaining to OMP.
In 2018, or thereabouts, a group of for and against residents met with twp officials and interested individuals in township hall to discuss STR and home share. The group met in respectful dialogue and offered to work with twp officials to move forward with working on those issues. That offer was not taken up at that time as there were perhaps other pressing time issues. Perhaps it is time to revisit getting a working group together to examine possible solutions.
Marty,
Thank you for this article. Straightforward, factual, and helps highlight the many issues that continue to come to the surface with the leadership in our township.
The rule of law is at the core of all of this. Time and time again, this has been violated.
Power and control within our township government has been out of balance. The imbalance of power and control highlights issues within the township governance. This can be attributed to lack of transparency, accountability, and special interests that are influencing decisions.
It is my hope that our supervisor will help steer the township to do what is right. Review all the facts and not let others influence decisions. Have the courage to stand up and speak for what should be done and help correct some of the decisions that have made in the past.
The superviser & board defer to legal who crafts opinions based on the direction they want to go. Factual letters submitted to the Gazette or Nextdoor are ignored. Pertinent letters submitted to the township appear to be too. Marty’s concerns align with the master plan which states there is public support to investigate options that improve policies & perhaps create a category called “country inns”. These could permit lodging on large tracts of rural land. The 2019 survey had overwhelming positive response to continue the current lighthouse practice of coupling maintenance with tourism promotion. If the lighthouse is zoned agricultural, looks like the township board & community already approve of individuals lodging for less than 30 days.
What property does the township own that they rent on a short-term basis? The lighthouse is the only property I can think of. Rented to people who serve as keepers for a week (I believe) at a time.
According to the township, all short term rentals are prohibited in Peninsula Township irregardless of who owns the property. Seems you would agree that owners of agricultural land can have short term rentals if their visitors conduct some sort of labor. So perhaps if the renters mow the lawn for the land owner then short term stints are okay?
I submitted a freedom of information request seeking information on Airbnb complaints in the last two years.
I got none. I was thinking there would be noise complaints or other issues. All I got were a couple of copies of letters written by the same person I presume complaining about people he had found on various websites advertising their homes for Airbnb rooms etc.
So one guy who feels it’s his role to report people who advertise on these sites is the so called “complaints” the town has received.
The township redacted this person’s name but they all were pretty much identical in format leading me to believe it was the same person.
My point is the so called problems of Airbnbs do not seem to have risen to the reporting level.
Marty is correct this issue should be discussed before folks are forced by the township into expensive litigation.
The township uses our money to sue us when they don’t get their way.
Kate I like you would hope the new board would take a different tact. Why not look at this issue and others as an opportunity to help farmers and others open their farms and homes to guests and share the wonderful aspects of the peninsula rather than once again shut down innovative approaches by people who want to try out new things. The knee jerk reaction typically is to ban it rather than try to make it work.
Louis,
Thank you for submitting the request for information regarding the complaint
Couldn’t agree with your last comment more. Well said!
I am very interested to hear Maura’s thoughts on both Marty and Louis’ points
“One of the main reasons the United States became great was because of the rule of law as implemented by due process — not because the abused and beleaguered taxpayer must follow the law.”
Spot on. And when all that rule of law and due process gets eroded away, it should come as no surprise that we have the kind of problems we have in our country today.