To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
The Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) have issued a statement regarding recent settlement discussions with Peninula Township. In a press release issued this week, they note that while initial conversations are a positive first step, more work remains to reach a durable resolution.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
From WOMP’s Press Release…
To maintain momentum and ensure the discussions remain productive and respectful of the time and resources involved, the wineries have requested a written response from the Township to the wineries’ October 2025 settlement proposal. Unfortunately, the Township has responded, through counsel, that it is unwilling to provide a response to the settlement proposal and would prefer to continue informal face-to-face discussions.
For discussions to be productive and transparent, parties need to share written positions so that each has a fair understanding of the negotiations as they move forward. We are hopeful the Township will continue to engage and negotiate in good faith. Exchanging written proposals allows all 11 wineries and the full seven-member Township Board to evaluate options clearly and have the necessary internal discussions to move efficiently toward an agreement.
“WOMP remains prepared to listen and to consider outcomes that are consistent with the law and the long-term interests of the Peninsula,” said Joseph M. Infante, attorney for the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula.
The wineries look forward to the Township’s response and remain committed to working together to bring this long-standing and costly dispute to a responsible conclusion.
Peninsula Township responded in a statement released today:
Peninsula Township is committed to working towards a resolution of the Wineries’ complaints, but believes the durable resolution the wineries seek requires full transparency. The Township regularly fields questions from concerned residents seeking information about settlement discussions and the position of the parties. It is clear that a transparent process would be in the interest of Township residents, and the Township is glad that transparency is also a genuine concern of the Wineries.
“It is difficult to credit the Wineries’ stated concern for transparency when the Township has repeatedly requested that the parties’ common interests and Township residents’ concerns be addressed through a public process,” said Maura Sanders, Peninsula Township Supervisor. “The Wineries have refused.”
The Wineries have yet to commit to a transparent process. The Township Board, however, has remained committed to engaging with representatives of the Wineries to understand and appreciate each party’s interests and to identify mutually agreeable solutions to this litigation.
Despite those efforts, the Township has now been informed that the Wineries are conditioning settlement discussions. This decision represents yet another obstacle the Wineries have placed in the path of productive resolution. The residents of Peninsula Township deserve better.
Ultimately, the resolution of this case affects one group of people the most, Township residents. However, they have been completely left out of the process with the Wineries’ settlement terms intentionally hidden from view. The Wineries have challenged the regulations that they and the community participated in drafting and enacting through a lawful state process. The Township has repeatedly invited the Wineries to re-engage through public channels — to seek amendments to the zoning regulations and their special use permits, to collaborate on regulations that address their stated needs.
Despite these invitations, the Wineries have chosen to keep their desired regulations hidden and the public excluded from discussions. Keeping the community in the dark will not produce the durable, responsible, community-driven outcome the Wineries claim to want.
The Township has identified specific areas where the parties are likely to find agreement. That information has been clearly articulated to the Wineries’ representatives. Rather than focus on joint interests, mutual gains, and common ground, the Wineries have withdrawn from meaningful engagement. There is no reason why the parties cannot work together to identify underlying needs, concerns, and shared objectives affecting both the Wineries and Township residents.
The Wineries have rejected the pathway that includes public involvement and public awareness. Their continued insistence on secrecy calls into question whether their professed willingness to listen and consider solutions is anything more than an empty promise.
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Maura. I read that on January 21, 2026, the judge entered an order on the township’s motion to dismiss the new federal lawsuit filed by the wineries on November 26, 2025. The status is “active & ongoing in District Court” which I believe means it was not dismissed. Is this true? You did not mention anything at the January 27, 2026 township board meeting…the perfect setting to do so. Nor did you post on the township’s website. To me transparency includes being timely both of which you were not if this is true. Actions speak more than words. Please update us residents on the status sooner than later. Thank you.
Settlement Responses on Winery Lawsuit.
As a reader, one can sometimes miss the intended tone and intentions of the writer(s), and that could be the case this time. After carefully reading the responses (more than once) from WOMP and OMP Trustees (Maura?), it is clear the wineries desire reconciliation and a pathway forward. However, 7 of the 8 response paragraphs that followed could insight a riot (pun intended).
We need to get the right people involved who have the right mindset and don’t have a grudge or whatever that compelled the adverse, unfiltered and unbalanced public reply!
We are getting further behind, not farther ahead, especially with interest accruing on $50 million,(and definitely closer to a $50 million judgement) that could changes Old Mission Peninsula forever.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but how does WOMP asking for written positions result in less transparency? Are they planning on using invisible ink, or a secret decoder ring? It’s as if the township reply verbosely addressed a topic that wasn’t the point of the original conversation, while avoiding the main discussion point.
I don’t want to accuse township representatives of gaslighting, but it does seem odd that when they claim they need “closed meetings”, they have zero problem with the lack of “transparency”. I will agree that, “The residents of Peninsula Township deserve better”…though perhaps not primarily from WOMP.
Next step could be a court ordered mediator if this process does not solve the issues
Release the womp settlement offer
What is so scary in it that they don’t want anyone to know?
Maybe it’s not as reasonable as they say it is?
I have to imagine if it was so pleasant they would be posting it everywhere
As a nearby neighbor, it’s certainly interesting to see the losing party in a lawsuit attempt to indignantly dictate the negotiation terms with a straight face.