To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Eddie O’Keefe, President of Chateau Grand Traverse, says the Wineries are not asking for special treatment. “We are asking for the same fair and lawful treatment any resident, farmer, or business would expect from their local government.” Read on for his thoughts. -jb
For more than 50 years, the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) have worked alongside our neighbors to build something uniquely special — a thriving agricultural and tourism economy rooted in winemaking and generational farmland. For decades, we tried to work with Peninsula Township government to ensure that there was a future where agriculture and small businesses could thrive.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
Those attempts failed.
In July, a federal judge ruled decisively in favor of WOMP, finding that Peninsula Township had “repeatedly and pervasively violated the wineries’ constitutional rights” with unlawful restrictions on their agricultural businesses.
The ruling also affirmed that wineries were legally permitted to host events, and that the Township’s attempts to stop them were unconstitutional. (Editor’s Note: In Judge Maloney’s July 7, 2025 Bench Opinion, note that WOMP was not awarded injunctive relief. As a result, the zoning ordinance, as amended, along with the wineries’ individual special use permits, remain in place. Also, view WOMP’s appeal to the July 7 ruling here. -jb)
We hoped this ruling would allow everyone to reset, rebuild trust, and find a responsible path forward. WOMP delayed enforcing the judgment, giving the Township time to engage in good faith. The Township did not come to the settlement table and, instead, challenged the Wineries to “come and get it — bring it on.”
Despite this conduct, this fall, WOMP sent a formal settlement proposal and asked for a response. To date, no response has been received. Instead, the Township has pushed off any discussion until months from now. (Note that at a special meeting on Nov. 6, 2025, the Township Board agreed to mediation, and later, agreed to either of the mediators offered by WOMP. -jb)
Then, on November 21, the Township attorney sent Bonobo Winery a cease and desist letter threatening to revoke its special use permit for hosting a farm to table dinner and a small wedding; the very type of activity the federal court awarded the Wineries damages for based on the Township’s unlawful restriction, and the very type of activity that the federal court found that the Township’s own enforcement officer had authorized at Bonobo. (View the text of the Notice of Violation letter dated Nov. 21, 2025 that Peninsula Township sent to Bonobo here. -jb)
The Township attorney also alleged violations of a noise ordinance that the same enforcement officer has called vague and unenforceable. The public needs to know the Township is trying to put Bonobo out of business. If that happened, the WOMP members are the next target.
At some point, enough is enough.
Last week, Bonobo, WOMP and a member winery filed a new federal lawsuit asking the court to stop the Township from retaliating against the Wineries, enforcing restrictions which have been deemed unconstitutional or no longer exist, and from enforcing its admittedly flawed noise ordinance.
This was not our first choice. For months, we chose restraint and were taking steps to find a resolution to the decades long dispute. But when a local government disregards a federal ruling and threatens lawful businesses, we must protect our rights and our livelihoods.
At a recent meeting, an official suggested, “If they want that judgement from the residents of Peninsula Township, they should serve us with that order.” That day may come, but so far, the Wineries have endeavored to find an amicable solution. Peninsula Township’s conduct, to date, demonstrates it is not interested in peaceful resolution.
We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for the same fair and lawful treatment any resident, farmer, or business would expect from their local government. (Click here to view regulations for residents, farmers and businesses in the Peninsula Township Zoning Ordinances. -jb)
Old Mission Peninsula deserves stable, responsible governance. Residents should not have to watch more public money poured into avoidable legal fights. Businesses should not have to operate under the threat of selective enforcement. Much of the Township Board (Ms. Sanders, Ms. Chown, Mr. Sanger and Mr. Wunsch) have been board members either during the majority of the first lawsuit or were board members since well before that lawsuit, so it is unclear whether they ever will be interested in responsible government.
Wineries have been part of Old Mission Peninsula for decades, and we hope to be here for decades more. We want to be partners in building a stable and prosperous future. But that begins with respect for the law, for the court’s decision, and for the constitutional rights of the people who live and work here.
– Eddie O’Keefe, President, Chateau Grand Traverse, LLC
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
This is, without a doubt, the most gaslighting, ridiculous article we’ve seen, and we’ve seen some serious compost.
Line after line is one half truth after the other.
Let’s share the truth –
The only one retaliating was the ‘member winery’ owner that stalked and verbally assaulted a member of our community. “You better be afraid, be very afraid”. Does this sound familiar?
Well done, ‘member winery’.
Don’t believe me? Please feel free to FOIA GT Sheriff yourself. Or call WOMP attorney – he already FOIAed it himself.
Eddie, why did YOUR OWN BROTHER complain about the music from Bonobo?
This isn’t retaliation. This is what the community has to deal with. WOMP wants nothing but what is good for them.
Thank you. I am stunned and disgusted.
Please, all of you, sit down and talk to each other. Try to agree to a permissable level of agribusiness, sporting and entertainment activities targeted on average to be similar to that elsewhere in Michigan, with each case going through accepted zoning negotiation protcol.
The bottom line is, the winery wants what it wants. Period. It has no intention of compromising. The township has reached out in an effort to mediate but the wineries refuse.
Jane, Why is the name of the first respondent missing. I thought that was not allowed.
In debate class often the positions to be argued were not selected by the debaters but given to the debate teams by the teacher or moderator. No matter your personal opinion you had to come up with points to argue the treatise given to you. So for the moment pretend you are an OMP winery owner and a federal judge ruled in your favor that the township had unconstitutional zoning ordinances against your business and that you were awarded $50MM in damages. So the Township then appeals this decision backed up by PTP urging. And then in late Oct. (contrary to a poster here) the wineries propose a settlement which would potentially reduce the judgement amount. The township rejects this offer (admittedly not all aspects of proposal are made public) and then the township issues a “disguised cease and desist” order to a WOMP fellow member for activities that were part of the winery lawsuit that the township lost. Next the township posts in an upcoming meeting packet a letter from co-defendant PTP that outlines their proposals and a committee of 3 PTP members, 3 Township board members, and only 3 WOMP members. Also published in the same Township packet is that PTP is not interested in any changes to the zoning ordinance ( Also verbally expressed in public comment by the head of PTP) and totally infinitesimal minor changes to the special use permits of the wineries ( a proposal so far away from the offer by WOMP) that it is essentially a non starter for negotiation. Oh and lastly the township stresses that PTP needs to be a part of the settlement process even though they have absolutely nothing to offer the wineries. They cannot change the SUP’s, zoning ordinance, or property assessments.
Now your job as a debate team is to argue that “The township has reached out in an effort to mediate but the wineries refuse.”
Ms. Sanders, Ms. Chown, Mr. Sanger and Mr. Wunsch were all re-elected so the majority of the voters believe that they are capable of responsibly governing our township. The townboard voted for mediation, why don’t the wineries want to go there?
Virginia. It appears WOMP only wants to negotiate with the township board & not PTP who consists of individuals that were not elected. For transparency, perhaps PTP can disclose to the public how many active members & donors support the organization. Doing so might help them gain more support.
Eddie,
You and WOMO members have lost any respect earned over the past 50 years by demanding your neighbors pay for damages they did not cause you.
You lost respect by letting a lawyer gag you from any transparency and communication with your neighbors.
You lost respect by attempting to force zoning changes outside of public view and without consulting your other community members.
Respect is earned. Share what is required to get to a settlement. Prove there is a path that doesn’t disrupt our community quality of life. Talk to us as neighbors without Mr Infante putting words in your mouths.
I’d love to see some open dialog and discussion and find a way to restore respect and support for wineries on OMP including yours.
Mr O’Keefe,
It seems that you and fellow WOMP members have forgotten that you have already been granted exceptional privileges and permissions from the township that neighboring farms and residents do not enjoy. You have the privilege to operate commercial business and retail sales on land zoned for agriculture residential use. You hold these privileges at the exclusion of other farms and neighbors.
I haven’t seen any of the wineries go out of business in the 50 years they have been in operation so it can only be assumed that wineries aren’t losing money, just aren’t making as much as theoretically possible. But, if I understand your logic, it’s all those pesky neighbors (who aren’t competing with your business) who are getting in the way of wineries making collectively another $50 million per year in profit.
And, all we hear the continuous drone about now is how terrible the township and neighbors are not allowing wineries to do as they please. But history has shown that the township has granted wineries exceptions to rigid rules. For example, the Peninsula Cellers tasting room on Center Road (not adjacent to their farm). Their tasting room and retail outlet business has proven a very nice venue for wine sales and it saved a great part of OMP history by making good use of the old schoolhouse. If I remember correctly Mr. O’Keefe, objected to this zoning exception that the township granted to a competitor vineyard. Now you want the township to further expand exceptional privileges you enjoy.
And there’s the case of Mr. Osterhouse… He purchased land with development rights already sold to PTP. The township did make allowances to permit commercial use of this property for his winery and now he feels entitled to sue the township. I would think he would have been appreciative of the township making allowances for his frankly dumb mistake. In retrospect, it probably would have been better to just deny his winery in the application phase rather than deal with his sense of entitlement now.
If it wasn’t for those same zoning rules that you complain about, neighbors could set up industrial marijuana growing operation and dispensary to diversify the tourist demographic away from exclusive and cranky wine snobs. Maybe a flashy neon casino and a row of strip clubs… Then tourists could have swanky bachelor and bachelorette parties on Wednesday, Thursday before the weddings that the wineries want to have on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Or maybe just go all in on agricultural and just plough under the few remaining fruit growing farms to make way for chicken and pig farms. We could have nice meat processing facilities on the peninsula too and use all the waste and byproducts for grape growing fertilizer to promote a circular economy. Now wouldn’t that make an attractive brochure for high minded tourists?
With exceptional privileges granted to the wineries come responsibilities that were all agreed to before the wineries were set up. I understand that you want neighbors to be punished and pay for imagined loss of profit you feel entitled to and make further allowances for future money making opportunities but we have already granted you exceptional privileges that we do not enjoy. Why do expect neighbors to keep rolling over for your profit at the expense of our own?
None of the wineries were forced to locate on the Peninsula. The township and your neighbors aren’t the problem here. Why can’t wineries just abide by the terms already agreed upon in their SUP and treat neighbors with respect and dignity instead of demanding new freedoms for wineries commercial growth at your neighbor’s expense? Or, are you so entitled that you truly don’t care about your neighbors and somehow everyone else owes you more, more, more?
Very well articulated with facts that don’t get much air time.
We all have some rules we don’t like but we knew them when we chose to live and work here.
Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) is a function of the township. The funds used to purchase development rights are a tax on township taxpayers.
After attending the meeting on December ninth, I have a real concern regarding the ability of some to leave Sleepy Hollow behind. P.T.P aside, we can’t even get a bank to lend money for a fire station, and a board member is more concerned with making sure, when and if it ever gets built, there’s lots of room for new township offices, which would greatly add to initial cost estimates. And personally I don’t see a need. However, as a taxpayer, looking at a potential cost of 50 million added to our taxable burden it is very clear that this board has no regard for the amount of money being thrown in the bays at he expense of their constituents. Solve this problem now. All of your lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank and if it keeps up, no respectable lawyer will touch this and then what? I already know of folks who were looking at purchasing homes here and having looked into this township thought better of it. Enough already.
It’s Pretty simple…
1 WOMP proved in court unfair treatment by the township.
2 Recent survey indicates majority of the respondents not in favor of direction the township IS taking.
3 NIMBY and DRAKONIAN are two new talking points when discussing lawsuit.
4 TIME to leave the past behind, moving forward in discussion is the only answer.
5. PTP does not represent the residents or the majority viewpoint, they have no place at the TOWNSHIP/WOMP TABLE.
The “wrong track” statistic keeps getting used as if it reflects poor board leadership, but that’s not what the data actually says. The main reason respondents feel the township is off track is the winery lawsuit — period.
The lawsuit has consumed years of attention, resources, and community goodwill. That’s what people are reacting to, not some failure of the board to lead or communicate. It’s important to separate the frustration created by a legal battle from the quality of governance itself.