To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
(Editor’s Note: Molly Stretten writes that small farms are vital to preserving Old Mission Peninsula’s rural character, but current ordinances make it difficult for them to remain viable. She outlines key barriers and potential solutions for supporting small growers, based on recommendations from the Township’s Agricultural Advisory Committee. -jb)
Over the past several years, most of the conversation about farming on our peninsula has centered on the back-and-forth between the township and WOMP. There’s been no shortage of op-eds, opinions, and social media debate. But in all of that, something important gets missed: farming on the Old Mission Peninsula isn’t just wineries, and it’s not just large, legacy farms with 100+ acres either.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
There are more than 120 farms here growing everything from stone fruit and vegetables to herbs, hops, Christmas trees, and wine grapes. And a significant share of the landscapes we all value are stewarded by small farmers.
Small is the New Backbone of Local Agriculture
I believe that the long-term preservation of farmland on the Old Mission Peninsula depends on acknowledging that the future of farming is evolving. Available data and regional trends demonstrate that small-scale, experiential, and direct-to-consumer agricultural operations are increasingly central to agricultural viability. Folks want to know where their food comes from, how it’s made, and experience those products at the source. Removing unnecessary barriers while creating a clear, proportional pathway for small growers to expand — and for new farmers to choose Old Mission — should be a priority alongside the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program in preserving active farmland.
But there’s a real conundrum facing small growers, and it helps explain why it can seem like farmers always have their pitchforks out. Peninsula Township’s Master Plan emphasizes preserving rural character and scenic landscapes, and residents consistently say those qualities are why they choose to live here. But in practice, whether by design or just denial of a changing landscape, current agricultural ordinances make it incredibly difficult for small farms to succeed — let alone grow or help preserve additional farmland.
The Overlooked Grower
Last fall, I served on a small grower subcommittee of the Township’s Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC). The group included four small growers, a legacy farmer, a winery owner, and a former representative from MDARD. We were tasked with examining the processing needs of what we often refer to as the “small farm gap” — growers operating on roughly 5 to 39 acres who are often overlooked in current policy.
Under current regulations, small growers with fewer than 40 acres are not permitted to process their crops into value-added products, like turning maple sap into syrup or apple cider into vinegar. They cannot engage, even on a small scale, in processing activities including: crushing, cooking, fermentation, distillation, storage or aging. This language is found in Amendment 201. If a retail component is added, the minimum acreage requirements increase further.
Amendment 201 was a sweeping processing ordinance quickly passed in 2022 in response to the WOMP lawsuit, and much of the language includes activities specific to wineries. But the impact is felt by all farmers, regardless of crop or size. The real life effect has been farmers who must process off the peninsula at tens of thousands of dollars in added annual expense.
As our work on the subcommittee progressed, it became evident that processing could not be meaningfully addressed in isolation. Small farms operate as integrated systems, where growing, processing, and market access are inherently interconnected. In response, the subcommittee took a holistic approach, considering use-by-right provisions, value-added processing, and small-scale agritourism as part of a cohesive framework aimed at supporting small farm viability.
Between September 2025 and January 2026, we met collectively on six occasions, with additional smaller working sessions as needed. We consulted with MSU Extension, reviewed zoning ordinances from other agriculturally focused communities across Michigan, and considered guidance from MDARD. Our recommendations were developed in alignment with the Michigan Right to Farm Act, applicable GAAMPs, and the Michigan Agricultural Processing Act, among other state-supported frameworks. They were intended to modernize and clarify agricultural land-use regulations, and to provide a framework that is clear, legally defensible, and understandable to voters. The proposal focuses on establishing scalable standards that support agricultural vitality without encouraging unchecked development or sprawl.
Our recommendations were prepared for the Agricultural Advisory Committee’s consideration as an initial framework — not a comprehensive zoning rewrite, but a starting point for a broader discussion around the needs of small growers and producers. To be clear, our work was focused specifically on addressing the small grower gap, not advancing a plan for unrestricted, agritourism-driven growth, which warrants a separate conversation.
That Old Saying About Assumptions
At the Township Board meeting on March 24, 2026, board members discussed the subcommittee’s work and the effectiveness of the Agricultural Advisory Committee. During that discussion, concerns were raised about the motivations of certain AAC members and their perceived affiliations with outside groups. In doing so, the board characterized the subcommittee’s work in a way that suggested it was not independently developed and could be dismissed as influenced or biased. To be clear, this committee was led by small farmers focused on small-scale farming needs. Any external input came from sources such as MSU Extension (MSUE), MDARD, and other policy experts. As the subcommittee’s lead, I’m not affiliated with Protect the Peninsula or the Citizens Coalition of Old Mission Peninsula.
Disagreement over policy is appropriate; however, questioning motives, and subsequently dismissing good work without evidence, is not. Statements of this nature can undermine trust and make it more difficult to engage in productive, good-faith discussions about the future of agriculture in Peninsula Township. It’s interesting to note that from January to March, the AAC carefully considered our recommendations without objection from the Township Board.
Towards the end of the March 24 Township Board meeting, a board member posed a fair and important question: “I think it’s more important that we understand from people who are actually on the ground operating farms what the regulatory barriers and limitations are to your economic success in this community.”
That question goes directly to the core of our subcommittee’s work on small-scale farming. We have already done that work. What follows is a clear articulation of those barriers.
- We seek to allow small-scale, on-farm processing of raw agricultural products into value-added goods. For example, a farmer operating on 15 acres should be able to own a modest-sized barn to process tapped maple sap into syrup. Under current township ordinances, this level of vertical integration is not allowed.
- We seek to allow farmers operating on 10 acres to process, ferment, and age vinegar within existing farm structures without restrictions based on generalized concerns about potential noise or odor from processing. It should be noted that under state law, farms are permitted to conduct activities such as applying odorous organic sprays with noisy equipment on a weekly basis, yet current township regulations do not allow for the quiet, long-term aging of vinegar in barrels within existing barns.
- We seek a clearly defined set of permissible small-scale marketing and agritourism activities consistent with state law and GAAMPs. Where local review is required, a transparent administrative checklist should provide a more predictable and efficient alternative to an arduous and arbitrary SUP (special use permit) process. For example, a GAAMP-compliant lavender producer seeking to offer farm-based activities aligned with state guidance should not face a year-long SUP process, that ultimately leads to them selling their farm from delay, uncertainty, and expense.
- We seek processing ordinances that do not bind processing to acreage requirements. Acreage is a poor proxy for impact, as it reflects land size rather than how a processing operation actually functions. Impacts are better measured by factors like scale, traffic, hours, and operational intensity, making performance-based standards more accurate and effective than acreage thresholds. A 5-acre farm with a small, low-intensity processing space may generate minimal impact, while a 100-acre farm could operate a much larger, higher-intensity facility with greater off-site effects. Policy experts from MSUE support this position.
Taken together, our recommendations reflect a straightforward reality: if we want to preserve farmland on Old Mission, we have to make it possible for farmers — especially small and emerging growers — to operate, adapt and grow. That means aligning local ordinances with state law, focusing on actual impacts rather than arbitrary thresholds, and allowing reasonable on-farm processing and agritourism activities that support farm viability. The current framework creates unnecessary barriers that limit opportunity and discourage investment in agriculture.
This is not a call to eliminate standards, but to apply them in a way that is clear, fair, and grounded in how farming actually works. If we are serious about protecting rural character and keeping land in active agriculture, then our policies must actively support the farmers who sustain it.
– Molly Stretten
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Very well put. Your recommendations are common sense ones that would help the small farmers. It is easy to dismiss the work your committee did on this and say we are not going to do anything until the womp lawsuit is settled. Or worse claim with no proof that you did not develop these suggestions independently of outside group. The lawsuit has nothing to do with the longstanding problems for the small growers. Instead of the board trying to find ways to criticize the work out of hand and dig in how about they take a high road and suggest you sit down with the planning commission and start talking instead of halting the progress you made.
It’s interesting because I’ve often wondered if Amendment 201 is a processing ordinance for the wineries or is it an ordinance for all farmers regardless of crop? If it’s the latter, then why is modifying processing ordinances dependent on the outcome of WOMP? How is that fair to the maple syrup guy? And the bigger question, are we inviting further litigation in tying all processing to the outcome of WOMP?
Molly, you are an important voice for the future of agriculture on Old Mission Peninsula (and Michigan). You are absolutely correct that invoking the WOMP lawsuit as a reason to “put a pin in” agricultural ordinance work is not logical. I would add that it is a non sequitur posing as wisdom.
The problem with Amendment 201 is not that it regulates agriculture. It is that it regulates too bluntly for the actual range of farms on Old Mission. It may not shut down most existing operations tomorrow, but it narrows the path for farms that need to evolve, diversify, process, retail, or transition to the next generation. It also makes it harder for new ventures and successor operators (indeed, they matter) to imagine a viable future here at all.
And that is why allowing the winery lawsuit to paralyze progress is such a costly mistake. A lawsuit is not a reason to stop governing. It is a reason to govern better. Freezing ordinance work does not reduce the damage. It compounds it by extending the uncertainty, weakening the Township’s position, and making future conflict more likely, not less.
Are you able to provide a link to the recommendations made to the AAC?
Yes. Click on the Small Grower Recommendation at this link here: https://farmoldmission.com/resources/agricultural-advisory-committee/
Thanks!
Well said Molly and Amanda.
At this late point, delaying until the appellate court rules is obviously the township’s and PTP’s strategy. While it seems certain to miss the mark, it is quickly becoming our reality. Flexibility to craft a sensible ordinance can come only from an inclined board supported by the citizens. I sincerely hope we choose that wisdom, although it is beginning to appear unlikely.
I’m probably like 95% of the residents of OMP. We are aware of the lawsuit, know the big picture, but light on details and the politics. Here’s what I do know for sure – we live on OMP because of the bucolic nature of OMP. The farmers, big and small, are key to this and are the canaries in the coal mine. If they get sick, OMP will no longer be the place that drew us to it. Farming in 2026 is difficult and incredibly hard work. Common sense regulations should protect the public but should not hamstring the farming community. The public is hungry for handmade, small batch products. Our farmers deserve the right to capitalize on this. Thanks for this opinion piece.
Cosette, I agree with your assessment that 95% of the OMP population, regardless of our politics, all want the same thing for our peninsula. If better heads prevail, we can find commonality and solutions for small growers. A few months back, I started a website to address farming on Old Mission. Here I’m hoping to define farming, unite growers, and share with the public all of the wonderful growers and their products. Think about joining us at farmoldmission.com.
Colette. I agree that most people don’t want or know details until a policy impacts them. In your opinion, what is an effective way better inform people?
I too was quite disappointed to hear the comments at the last Twp Board meeting. Now it is painfully clear that the sentiment of the board is to do nothing (absolutely nothing) with respect to moving forward a plan to help small acreage farmers. They are (well at least one board member) simply focused on hurt feelings that another organization came forward with a plan to help preserve farming and preserve our rural character. Twenty years from now our destiny is a peninsula filled with 5 acre McMansions because our board clings to the past. It is easy to say “no” and that is what our board is doing. There is no examining or evaluating new plans to preserve our rural character. And I think that is what we all desire.
Molly: Your entire article explains your concerns well. Just wanted to add a few points:
1. Amendment 201 was written to repeal & replace the ordinance that WOMP sued over. It put an end date to which damages would be calculated.
2. The citizens committee that wrote 201 did not consist of all farmers who were “on the ground & operating”. 3 PTP members (another political action group similar to citizens coalition group) sat on the drafting committee. At that time PTP had not yet been given intervenor status.
3. Many months prior Supervisor Sanders encouraged the ag committee to begin working through components of 201.
4. The group make-up excludes people who would be active farmers but cannot due to the ordinance restrictions. So, a want to be maple syrup farmer is excluded. The scope of participation is narrow & restrictive.
5. Sub-committees are formed all the time at the Township… they divide & conquer to be efficient & timely.
6. Being affiliated with an “outside group” (citizen’s coalition which consists of Peninsula Township”) is not illegal or unethical. Just like PTP, all groups & citizens have the right to participate with its government.