To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
This afternoon, the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) presented Peninsula Township with a proposed settlement which they say intends to end years of litigation and “provide a clear, fair path forward for both sides,” they note in a press release.
The proposal was submitted to the Township on October 30 “after the wineries waited months for meaningful engagement,” they say.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
“This is not about winning or losing. It’s about doing what’s right for our community,” says Chris Baldyga, vineyard owner and WOMP spokesperson. Read a recent opinion piece from Chris here.
“We live here. We farm here. We raise our families here,” he notes. “We want to find common ground that protects the land and the people who make Old Mission special.”
The complete settlement proposal remains confidential, but WOMP leaders stress that the terms are “measured, reasonable, and fully consistent with what the federal court has already ruled the Township cannot prohibit, as well as being consistent with the Michigan Liquor Control Code and Michigan’s Right to Farm Act.”
The Wineries say the proposal “seeks practical clarity on basic business operations that will allow family-owned wineries to remain viable while maintaining Old Mission’s rural character.”
Highlights of the Settlement
- Adoption of a noise standard which limits outdoor sound after 9 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday, and after 11 p.m. on Friday and 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.
“We’re not asking for special treatment,” says Chris. “We’re asking for fair, clear and consistent rules so we can continue farming responsibly. We’re ready to sit down with the Township anytime and work out an agreement that keeps our community whole.”
A Structured Approach to Reaching a Settlement
The Wineries’ proposal does not address the damages awarded by the Court in July 2025. Instead, the Wineries are focused on first reaching a mutual agreement with the Township on how their businesses will operate moving forward.
Once those operational terms are finalized, the Wineries say they’re willing to consider accepting a reduced amount from the nearly $50 million awarded by the Court. The Wineries also anticipate that the Township’s insurance providers will be part of these discussions.
“This proposal shows that the Wineries are reasonable, thoughtful, and motivated by what is best for the community,” notes Joseph M. Infante, attorney for WOMP.
“They have every legal right to enforce the judgment, yet they are choosing instead to offer a fair and workable solution which could result in a reduction of the amount of money damages. The Township now has an opportunity to meet them at the table and bring this long dispute to a responsible close.”
Protecting the Land and Community
For generations, the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula have served as stewards of the region’s agricultural heritage, notes the press release. Collectively, they maintain more than 1,800 acres of vineyards and open space that help preserve the Peninsula’s scenic beauty and rural character.
“Our vines protect the agricultural heritage of Old Mission Peninsula,” says Chris. “Every acre we farm is an acre that stays open, productive and beautiful. We’re proud to be part of this community, and we’re hopeful that the Township will join us in finding a solution that works for everyone.”
The press release notes that Chris has reached out to Maura Sanders, Peninsula Township Supervisor, and requested an in-person meeting which includes three members of the Township Board and three members of WOMP, along with attorneys, to discuss the terms of WOMP’s settlement proposal.
Several possible dates were provided for that meeting over the next two weeks, and the Wineries await a response from the Township.
Read all winery lawsuit stories and opinion pieces on the Gazette here.
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Time for dialog
Hopefully a new page is turned and the recalcitrance by
the township is a thing of the past. John Wunch’s olive branch on one minor aspect of the ordinances is a step in the right direction. Let’s not forget that the many farmers who opposed 201 from the start were not listened to!
I like the idea of negotiation and as suggested by Chris Baldyga, lets make it fair, clear and consistent… start by sharing the entire proposed settlement with us. Also, please don’t suggest that we are dumb enough to agree to any changes without the financial damages being part of the negotiation. While I am sure Mr Infante thinks separating the two items is a great idea, he is paid to keep negotiations in WOMP’s favor and is not interested in fairness to Old Mission residents.
If Chris can get WOMP to all come to the table in unison and act like neighbors and residents, share what you believe is fair and reasonable. Once we have a chance to all understand what we are signing up for, we can even take it to a special election so that each resident gets a vote. That is the fairest way to get full input from the community that lives on Old Mission.
The lawsuit isn’t helping anyone at this point in time. Normal citizens have to keep worrying about what level of payment we may be responsible for, WOMP has not seen any money as appeals drag on, the Township is looking to sell assets including our parks to cover damages, Township insurance companies even have hidden behind legal maneuvers to avoid paying. The only people that may be benefiting right now would be people looking to buy property on OMP as they can negotiate down the price due to “litigation obligation risk”. OK, maybe I over estimated that, legal teams are probably still benefiting by racking up more billable hours.
Chris, I hope we see more details soon and I trust you can get your WOMP members to act like neighbors. I understand some are very interested in settling and returning to being active community members and others are not so inclined and want to maximize profits regardless of impact to the Old Mission Peninsula. I appreciate growing grapes and creating delicious wine is a difficult job, especially with a global surplus of grapes. I understand wanting to supplement income with events and food services. I hope you and the other wineries also appreciate the 6,000 other people that call OMP home want to continue to have an enjoyable community, good quality of life, safety and simple pleasures of quiet walks, bike rides and warm summer evenings with family and friends.
I look forward to learning more about your proposal.
Transparency is key. Since we are all on the hook for damages, we deserve to see what is being proposed.
This is a chance, a big chance to move forward and get this mess behind us. We have so many well educated and dedicated citizens on OMP and persons who value our rural community and our water paradise. We can get people together with differing opinions to discuss and come to solutions in a proper civil discourse manner.
The alternative is a disaster for many years to come. We are now seeing what we knew would happen. Our Township cannot obtain any bonds on future projects such as the fire emergency medical facility because our credit rating would be too low for a creditor to take a chance on us. Our citizens are divided and friendships and acquaintances are suffering. New projects such as repair of Bluff Rd., Parks mileage, and Non motorized transportation are in severe jeopardy. And with all the pre Appeal motions to be concluded before the appeal even starts, the legal process is forecasted to take years to conclude. In the meantime we pay (us taxpayers) the new legal firm Miller Johnson lawyers $700/hr to handle the related insurance company lawsuits. These fees are monthly charges which have already started and come directly from our township treasury. The future without compromise is quite bleak. Let’s get this zoning ordinance modification done and move forward.
How about nothing for the WOMP wineries that sued the community for 200 million dollars and think they have 50 million dollars of our money in their pockets now. Previous litigation seems to have saved us 150 million dollars I see no compromise in their offer of parley. But they do seem to realize the cost of trying to collect. Boycott, protest, repeat.
They are going for the optics.
Some neighbors they are.
Totally agree. These are not the actions of a good neighbor. Boycott WOMP wines!
Todd it’s attitude like yours that will lead no where. Ever since the judgment was issued most of our citizenry who spoke out have asked for getting the two parties together.
So you want the township to continue a head in the sand approach? Fortunately I bet wiser heads than yours will prevail at the township. Hasn’t our supervisor been saying all along she wants to talk with the wineries. Well her call has been answered.
Based on history, here’s how this goes down…though I hope I eat crow.
WOMP: “We’d like to work out the terms of how our ongoing operations function.”
Township Gov: “We need to wrap the $50M settlement into this discussion.”
WOMP: “We’d like to keep the settlement discussions totally separate from these discussions.”
Township Gov: “We’re not going to negotiate with you to give you what you want, and then have the $50M settlement be a “separate” discussion based on what you feel about the outcome of first discussion.”
WOMP: “We’d like to keep the settlement discussions totally separate from these discussions.”
Township Gov: “We’re leaving. Oh, by the way, during our discussions your vehicles were illegally parked, so our enforcement officer ticketed your cars. Have a good day!”
Then add lawyer fees and another round of opinion pieces on Old Mission Gazette.
This settlement offer sounds like a best-case scenario for everyone involved. I applaud the WOMP group for bringing an offer and engaging with the township to try to find a non-legal method to end this mess. I trust the township board will act in the best interest of all the township taxpayers (present and future) and consider ceding some ground on the rules of business operations.
The WOMP requests seem very reasonable if you actually read the text and not make assumptions based on pre-conceived ideas. They are asking for a clear noise ordinance. Don’t assume this means unlimited amplified sound until 9 pm during the week and 11 pm on weekends. They want capacity limits that mirror the state regulations. They want business rules that mirror the state regulations, which allow them to sell merchandise and prepare food. They want clear rules for outdoor usage.
I think people jump to assumptions and envision rock concerts until 2 AM, miles of ugly paved “wal-mart” style parking lots, food trucks on every corner, and traffic jams on center road at 11 PM. Nobody wants that.. especially the wineries. The peaceful beauty of the peninsula is what makes the wineries attractive for tourists and if you ruin that it will hurt the wineries as well as the citizens.
So the big question is.. “If the township agrees to the settlement requests, what does the township get?”
Here are my guesses:
1 – No future lawsuits. We all focus on the $50M award, but forget there are additional lawsuits in play. The award covered 2017 to 2022. There is a new one that will look at 2022 to current. There are additional lawsuits for legal fees. There are lawsuits against by insurance companies. There are lawsuits against attorneys. There will be more lawsuits. The township will probably face additional liability from lost legal cases and will probably spend at least another $50M in legal fees for years to come.
2 – Reduction of the current $50M settlement to whatever amount the court rules the insurance companies have to pay out. If I were in WOMP’s shoes, I would want as much compensation as possible, without it having to come from my neighbors pockets. I don’t think WOMP wants to make enemies of the entire township population. If they can get a portion of the settlement from the townships insurance companies, they should absolutely take that money. This is why they won’t include the $50 lawsuit in the settlement agreement. They can’t determine the amount because nobody knows what the insurance companies will be forced to pay.
3 – Peace. I think it’s safe to presume that with no settlement, the legal process surrounding this mess will take many years (probably a decade) and the real winner will only be the attorneys on both sides. The stress levels will be enormous for all residents and especially for the elected township officials.. who will probably quit because it isn’t worth it. Some reasonable concessions on township regulations by the board (in representation of the citizens) in exchange for concessions from the WOMP can put an end to most of this disaster and let the township move forward.
Maura and board (if you read this).. Please put aside the emotions and anger from the past years of fighting and consider the settlement agreement and what it will allow for the township going forward. We can either concede a little more business opportunity to the wineries and end this mess or spend a hundred million and a decade in court and probably be forced to concede a little more business opportunity to the wineries.
I support Chris Baldyga’s approach. Once WOMP sees the residents as a whole and township officials are agreed to winery agritourism at least as open as in leelanau county, WOMP will both not be able to defend the grossly erroneous calculations used to arrive at $50,000,000 on appeal, and lose its motivation to try. The township supervisor may consider calling a vote by residents on a negotiated zoning agreement.
I agree with this approach. it is sound.
I don’t live in leelanau for a reason… and don’t want the same here. it is why we have zoning laws. however their wine is far superior and we should all be drinking it.
Chris Baldyga’s mentioned “neighbors always”, if that is the case then why did you bring the lawsuit against your neighbors? We, your neighbors, are the township.