To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Last week, a new lawsuit was filed against Peninsula Township in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The plaintiffs in Case No. 1:25-cv-01588 are OV the Farm, LLC (operating as Bonobo Winery), Bowers Harbor Vineyard & Winery, and the Wineries of the Old Mission Peninsula Association. This was in immediate response to a township zoning violation notice.
Peninsula Township has come to understand that OV the Farm, LLC (Bonobo Winery), Bowers Harbor Vineyard & Winery, and the Wineries of the Old Mission Peninsula Association filed the lawsuit challenging the Township’s recent correspondence to Bonobo Winery regarding zoning compliance and noise ordinance matters.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
On November 21, 2025, the Township sent a letter to Bonobo Winery seeking clarification and compliance with existing special use permit conditions and Township ordinances, including noise regulations. This enforcement correspondence was intended to open dialogue as well as an administrative review process that could proceed before the Planning Commission and Township Board to ensure all businesses operate within established community standards.
From the Complaint:
The Wineries bring this action because Peninsula Township refuses to accept this Court’s judgment entered in Wineries of the Old Mission Peninsula Association, et al. v. Peninsula Township, Case No. 1:20-cv-1008 (W.D. Mich.) (the “WOMP Case”). Peninsula Township is again attempting to infringe upon its residents’ constitutional rights by pretending the WOMP Case never happened. Plaintiffs, therefore, seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit the Township from enforcing restrictions this Court already ruled were not enforceable. Plaintiffs also seek relief from a noise ordinance the Township is now enforcing against at least one of the Wineries even though the Township’s Ordinance Enforcement Officer has publicly and repeatedly stated that noise ordinance is unenforceable. Without that relief, Peninsula Township is threatening to shut down at least one Winery entirely and is likely to threaten others. (Read the full Complaint here.)
The Township has a responsibility to all residents and businesses to fairly enforce our ordinances. We had hoped to resolve these matters through direct communication and the normal administrative process that applies to Township businesses.
Rather than engage in the Township’s standard compliance review process, Bonobo, Bowers Harbor Vineyard & Winery, and WOMP have chosen to immediately escalate matters by pursuing federal litigation against the Township. The Township remains committed to working with all businesses while respecting the rights of neighboring property owners and complying with the zoning and permitting requirements that apply equally throughout our community.
Also, note that the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) filed a cross-appeal against Peninsula Township and Protect the Peninsula, thereby not accepting the Court’s July 2025 Judgment. WOMP appealed the following specific issues:
1. The district court’s ruling that Peninsula Township’s allowed hours of operation, which are shorter than those allowed by the Michigan Liquor Control Code, are not preempted by the Michigan Liquor Control Code. (RE 162, Page ID # 5989-5991; RE 525, Page ID # 21129-21133; RE 623.)
2. The district court’s decision that it would not rule on whether Peninsula Township’s ban on restaurants was preempted by the Michigan Liquor Control Code even though Plaintiffs requested the relief in their complaint and the parties litigated the issue by consent by fully briefing the issue.(RE 525, Page ID # 21122-21124; RE 623)
3. The district court’s failure to rule on the claim that winery events are commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. (RE 559, Page ID # 21903-21906; RE 623.)
4. The district court’s ruling that Plaintiffs-Appellees could not recover damages for Peninsula Township’s enforcement of an unwritten closing time under a Due Process theory of freedom to operate a business without arbitrary governmental interference. (RE 601, Page ID # 23319; RE 623.)
View WOMP’s full appeal here.
Peninsula Township will review the lawsuit with legal counsel and respond appropriately through the court process. The Township remains committed to preserving the agricultural character of our community while balancing the interests of all stakeholders.
– Maura Sanders, Peninsula Township Supervisor
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Ticker Article:
https://www.traverseticker.com/amp/news/wineries-file-new-complaint-in-ongoing-old-mission-dispute/
Once again, the matter was not properly handled by our incompetent peninsula township board which forced the hand of the wineries to respond accordingly. Way to poke the bear! When will the township board get a clue? Ridiculous and potentially costing us millions!!!
Can’t we all just get along? I know that may sound naive and simple, but this is a crazy waste of money on legal bills, and when the judgement came in that could potentially cost us the sale of the Old Mission light house?! No one wants that. The wineries are a lovely attraction for visitors. They deserve to run their business with some music and events. No one wants Traverse City and Peninsula turning into Las Vegas. I think we can all agree on that. Having a beautiful wedding with tents and lights and music is not the end of the world people. There are bigger problems to solve. How can we get to those if something as really simple as a venue offering a party and music can’t be discussed calmly and compromises reached? Peace to all of you!
Ms. Sanders, thank you for your straight-forward report about the new WOMP-Bonobo-Bowers Harbor lawsuit against the Township. We all are wondering why some WOMP wineries think lawsuits are the best way to resolve local issues. If a winery doesn’t understand the Township zoning, SUPs and PDR rules, or doesn’t agree with a notification letter, you would think a phone call and at least one meeting could start the discussion, instead of reflexively filing another hurtful lawsuit. Are WOMP and these wineries part of the community, or are they trying to ruin the community?
You don’t live here. Mind your own business.
I’ve lived on the Old Mission Peninsula since 1979. I’d endorse the process suggested by Mr. Parsons. The recent PTP presentation and discussion held at the library explained a number of facts about zoning, policies, and process. And I appreciated that the room was full and that many farm, township, and resident viewpoints were expressed, and all were civil.
Mr. Parson is a bully. PTP is an unelected organization that joined the lawsuit yet has no financial responsibility (as an organization). Mr. Parson brings a can of gasoline to a fire and continues to play muckraker in a community where he no longer lives. The recent township survey indicates that residents are not happy with the direction of the township yet their behavior does not change. With the conclusion of the recent lawsuit the judge states clearly that several ordinances are unconstitutional; however, township leadership still pushes forward with their rigid intrusive ordinance agenda. Folks in the community do not want to lose the rural character of the peninsula and support reasonable ordinances; however, many current and proposed ordinances are ridiculous.
With regards to the recent PTP meeting I have no doubt that a room full of like-minded people seeking the same results were quite content and polite to each other.
If you truly want to keep our rural charm then it is imperative that our farmers survive. Look around and notice – farms are not selling (especially township protected land). Farmers throughout the region are pulling up trees, burning them and closing the farms forever. The next step will be for more housing, traffic, noise and congestion. By the way… I’m no sycophant for WOMP. I’m simply a resident of the peninsula that believes it is time for the township to embrace compromise and represent the entire community rather than a small group of elites.
Nothing says “let’s have an open dialog” like sending an “enforcement correspondence”.
Dear lord. Read the room, not the echo chamber.
I am a resident and do think that Grant Parsons makes a fair observation in questioning how another WOMP wineries lawsuit serves the community. Simply put, a “file lawsuit first ask questions later” approach makes clear to me that the Township has no choice but to seek clarity of the ruling in the initial lawsuit through the appeals process. Without such clarity, this latest lawsuit suggests that the Township and (indirectly) its residents will continually be the target of lawsuits challenging Township zoning, SUPs and PDR rules. With agri-tourism growing in Michigan, our Township is not the only jurisdiction being faced with these new regulatory questions. For example, Armada Township was recently found to have properly limited the agricultural property tax exemption for a farm engaged in significant non-agriculture activities. See https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-published/2025/371397.html
Like most residents, I’d prefer to have Township issues handled here in the Township without the need for court intervention, but that avenue seems to have slipped away with this latest lawsuit.
After further reflection on this entire unfortunate situation, the peninsula township board needs to use reasonable judgment without the influence of PTP. If they do that I believe a reasonable negotiation can occur to get issues resolved and hopefully stop this back and forth costing us all time and money.
Often comments are made as a result of not having enough information. After reading the comments related to this article in the Gazette, it is clear that some of you need a better understanding about the required lawful procedures of our Peninsula Township.
OMP has been my home since 1990 and I have had the experience of being the Recording Secretary for the OMP Planning Commission, when this Winery vs. Peninsula Township all started. I participate in various Township meetings and informational events that are offered and when I have questions I call the township office and speak to or meet with various personnel to get my answers. I regularly communicate with neighbors to make sure the information they have is correct and I’m available to speak with any of you as well.
Wineries have a legal responsibility to follow the Zoning Ordinance regulations and requirements of the Permit for which they applied and were issued, in order to run their business. In the Lawsuit Settlement the judge did not change any of the Peninsula Township ordinances, so the Township is bound to act on infractions of the ordinances, to enforce the ordinances and protect the rights of all its residents. Changes to OMP Zoning Ordinances can be made, but only through a step-by-step Public involved process. This cannot and should not be taken lightly as there has been historically, and continues to be, intentional planning in all progress of our Peninsula.
NOTE: The Master Plan for our Peninsula was originally created, with extensive public engagement, in 1968 with a focus on agriculture and natural resources. Zoning Ordinances were written and established from this document but have since been reviewed, again involving extensive public engagement, resulting in many updated and adopted amendments. (Key dates and Milestones: 1972, 1974, 1983, 1990s, 2002, 2004, 2011, 2016-2021 & 2024)
I want to thank all Peninsula Township Personnel, for doing your job of enforcing the compliance of our Zoning Ordinances. I appreciate that you are protecting the rights of all OMP residents!
My concern is: How is it that the WOMP Wineries, who call themselves reputable, have no self-governance to neither follow the long established rules, regulations and ordinances nor have any sensitivity to their neighbors’ rights? If the Wineries are truly interested in our Peninsula Community, as they say they are, they would be making decisions based on the rights of us all.
Information is powerful: The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it are the highest form of law in the American legal system. Any state or local law, including a township ordinance, that directly conflicts with the U.S. Constitution is invalid and unenforceable.