To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
In the latest development of the ongoing legal tension between local wineries and Peninsula Township, a federal judge has denied a request for a preliminary injunction that sought to block the Township from restricting food service at winery tasting rooms.
U.S. District Judge Paul L. Maloney issued the Opinion and Order on April 28, 2026, dealing a procedural blow to the plaintiffs — OV the Farm, LLC (Bonobo), Bowers Harbor Vineyard & Winery, and the Wineries of the Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP). Read more about this lawsuit here.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
The Heart of the Conflict
The dispute centers on whether Peninsula Township has the authority to limit the types of food that wineries serve. The wineries argued that the Michigan Liquor Control Code preempts local control, claiming that state law allows them to operate “restaurants” with unfettered discretion.
The legal spark for this specific motion was a November 2025 letter sent by the Township to Bonobo. The letter warned that “full-service meals” and “facility rentals” were not allowable uses in the A-1 Agricultural District and threatened the potential revocation of Bonobo’s Special Use Permit (SUP) if the winery did not comply.
Why the Injunction Was Denied
Judge Maloney’s ruling focused on two primary issues: “ripeness” and the “scope of local authority.”
- A “Hazy” Policy: The Court found the Township’s stance on food to be “amorphous.” During testimony, Township Supervisor Maura Sanders was unable to provide a consistent definition of what constitutes a “full-service meal” versus “allowable food” — because the Township has not yet taken a final enforcement action or clearly defined its policy. Thus, the judge ruled that the claim is not yet “ripe” for a judicial decision.
- Local vs. State Rights: The Judge rejected the wineries’ “absolutist” argument that state law gives them total immunity from local zoning regarding restaurants. He noted that while state law allows wineries to operate restaurants, local governments retain the right to add “additional regulations” — such as limiting certain types of food service in specific zones — so long as they do not prohibit the activity entirely.
“Plaintiffs’ substantive position would force local governments to accept wineries operating anything from a movie theater to a nightclub to an industrial feeding operation in the same location,” Maloney wrote, noting that such a view is inconsistent with Michigan law.
What Happens Next?
While the denial of the preliminary injunction means the Township’s current policies remain in place for now, the ruling is not a final judgment on the merits of the entire lawsuit.
The Judge did highlight potential future hurdles for the Township, noting that the “vagueness” of their unwritten food standards could be an issue if they attempt to move forward with actual enforcement actions. For now, the wineries continue to operate, though the “Tuscan lunches” and “full-service meals” cited in the Township’s warnings remain a point of legal contention.
The case, OV the Farm, LLC, et al. v. Peninsula Township, continues in the Western District of Michigan, although the Township has filed to dismiss the case in its entirety.
Read the Wineries’ November 2025 Complaint here and Judge Maloney’s April 2026 Opinion and Order here.
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
In my opinion, this is where the township should have relaxed its position to begin with—allowing all of them to have a full-service restaurant. This would benefit all of the residents and employ local people in these establishments. It would also encourage the wineries to compete with each other.
As it stands now, the weddings are (in my opinion) the problem. Catered food and staff can be hired for each event, which provides zero benefit to the residents. Saturdays and Sundays, with 11 venues hosting 100 guests each, is the issue. We are not set up for that amount of traffic.
I suggest offering the olive branch of allowing restaurants and dissolving the rest.
So I don’t understand why if state law states” local governments retain the right to add “additional regulations” — such as limiting certain types of food service in specific zones — so long as they do not prohibit the activity entirely”, the township doesn’t just limit the food service to snacks, charcuterie boards and or cheese and cold cuts. Should be clear enough!
In serving a full menu, doesn’t that turn the “winery” into a restaurant? At least one of the plaintiffs are on land of which the development rights have been sold to the township, so the land is supposed to remain “agricultural,” right? I guess having a restaurant is agricultural since it is food-related? I could buy any land that has had the development rights sold, plant an herb garden and then place a restaurant on it because I grow herbs? Does the selling of development rights only prevent the building of houses on the land?
Nancy… the following is directly from court documents:
Neither party in their briefing references a written ordinance explicitly prohibiting food service in the A-1 district. Plaintiffs’ sole source for its descriptions of Defendant’s
“policy” on food is the November letter. At the hearing, Township Supervisor Sanders testified about the Township’s position on whether certain kinds of food service are allowable
in the A-1 district. She testified that, consistent with the letter, the service of meals from a “full-service kitchen” is not allowed, nor is the provision of “full-service meals.” But the “service of food” is allowable. When pressed to break down the distinctions between these categories, she did not provide a consistent set of criteria to separate what is allowable and
what is not. She made reference to factors like “robustness” or whether the food is a “small plate,” but did not define those terms. When asked hypothetical questions about various
kinds of food preparation or different potential customer orders, she answered that she did not know how the Township would handle those situations. When asked directly whether
the Township had reached a final decision about whether Bonobo’s food service had crossed the line into the unallowable categories, she said it had not.
How can an ordinance be enforced if when the Township Supervisor can not define what is in violation of the ordinance or what is not in violation of the ordinance. It suggests that the ordinances are written “vaguely” on purpose so the Township can pick and choose when to enforce and when not to enforce. “Something is rotten in Denmark er Peninsula Township…”
and this directly from the documents –
“Plaintiffs Are Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits.
Plaintiffs argue that the Township currently has a policy, that they fear will be enforced, preventing them from serving the food they wish to serve. They argue that this policy is preempted by state law because state law gives them unfettered discretion to operate any and all kinds of “restaurant” referred to in the Michigan Liquor Control Code, and local governments may not limit that discretion. Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on this claim because it is not yet clear what the Township’s policy on food is and because their absolutist claim to restaurant-choice impunity is inconsistent with state law.”
Ultimately, the letter was asking for Bonobo to discuss what they wanted to do and give clarification on what they were currently doing. Unfortunately they responded with another federal lawsuit.
The full transcript, available in 30 days, will provide more clarity. Nevertheless, Judge Maloney denied their relief, and no one, the plaintiffs included, argued that Bonobo had NOT violated the noise ordinance.