Opinion: Support Ag Committee’s 40-Acre Proposal for Amendment 201

Editor’s Note: OMP resident John Wunsch urges township residents to support the Agricultural Advisory Committee’s recommendation to revise the agriculture processing and retail ordinance, known as Amendment 201, by reducing the acreage required for a retail tasting room with limited outdoor seating to 40 acres. Read on for his thoughts, and if you have something to say, write it up and send it to me, [email protected]. -jb

Recently, Chris Baldyga, the owner of 2 Lads Winery, wrote: “What we want are fair, clear, and consistent rules that allow farms to stay viable while continuing to respect our neighbors.”

That is indeed a fine goal worthy of support and community effort.

And, fortunately, there is a process moving forward through the appropriate channels of local government, starting at the Agricultural Advisory Committee, which can take us to that vision.

Already, there is a new component regarding signage for agriculture, which came from that committee and is being integrated into the process of the Planning Commission ordinance subcommittee. That could help our agricultural economy by enhancing visibility of farm markets.

Another good example of progress is the recommendation from the Agricultural Committee to revise the agriculture processing and retail ordinance, known as Amendment 201, by reducing the acreage required for a retail tasting room with limited outdoor seating to 40 acres.

This is a balanced compromise between the previous 20-acre minimum for the location of a processing and retail tasting room which had been established in 2001, and the current 60-acre minimum in our current Amendment 201.

Balance is the key here. We should all be on the same team, moving forward with goals that will bolster our agricultural community, while respecting residential life within the unique limits on infrastructure imposed by our geography.

These and other recommendations to come from the Agricultural Committee will take more time to become a reality. They go from the Agricultural Committee to the Planning Commission, to a Planning Commission subcommittee, back to the Planning Commission, and then to public hearing at the Planning Commission before passing to the Township Board for a public hearing and final action.

It takes patience and teamwork to go through that process, but it is a productive and appropriate way to foster evolutionary change for our community in regard to regulations around agriculture and agritourism.

As we have seen over the last five years, the alternative of attempting to evolve our regulation through the courts is even slower and does not engender teamwork.

We should all hope that somehow, either in the courts or through some settlement agreement outside the courts, that this legal process eventually leads us to a good outcome. And, let’s take the opportunity to work together now to explore, develop, revise until right, and adopt new methods and guidelines for agritourism to supplement agricultural production through the established planning channels in our township.

I urge us all to take our first opportunity to support this ongoing process and join me in support of this current proposed good change, as the 40-acre revision proposal moves to the Planning Commission and through the process to eventual adoption.

-John Wunsch, Old Mission Peninsula resident

Also Read…