Citizens Group Proposes Settlement, Seeks Transparency in Winery Case

A citizens group called Protect the Peninsula stepped into the contentious dispute over zoning and winery operations by publishing its own settlement proposal, escalating a dispute that already includes a roughly fifty million dollar judgment against Peninsula Township. The development put public pressure on both the township and the wineries over whether confidential negotiations will resolve issues that residents say affect community character and local governance.

Eleven wineries previously won a judgment against the township in litigation that found zoning practices unconstitutional. The wineries, organized as WOMP, circulated a proposed settlement outline that addressed items such as noise standards and rules around tents and outdoor events. Many of the detailed terms in that outline remained confidential, and WOMP asked for closed negotiations citing a court gag order. In response, Protect the Peninsula, which was allowed to intervene in the case, publicly posted its own settlement goals and held a meeting on November 24 to discuss them.

Protect the Peninsula called for eleven separate settlements, one per winery, and urged that winery operations be limited to winemaking and agriculture. The group also asked that the wineries relieve the township of the approximately fifty million dollar damages award. Protect the Peninsula argued that confidential settlement talks are inappropriate for zoning matters, which it said should be decided through public processes. Peninsula Township Supervisor Maura Sanders indicated support for Protect the Peninsula holding a public meeting and called for transparency. The wineries declined to comment for the initial reporting. Appeals and mediation were ongoing at the time of publication.

For Grand Traverse County residents, the dispute has direct implications. A large damages award and its potential resolution could affect township budgets, local services, and property tax pressures. The debate over tents and outdoor events touches on tourism, agricultural land use, and the character of rural neighborhoods that depend on both farming and visitor economies. More broadly, the case highlights questions about how local governments balance private commercial activity with zoning protections and how much of that process should remain subject to public scrutiny.

As appeals and mediation continue, local leaders and residents will be watching whether the parties accept public negotiating terms, or whether confidential settlements will determine the shape of winery operations and municipal finances for years to come.