In Wineries of the Old Mission Peninsula Association v. Peninsula Township (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, 2025), a group of local wineries sued Peninsula Township, Michigan, claiming that the township’s zoning laws unfairly restricted their ability to operate and grow. The wineries are located on the Old Mission Peninsula, a picturesque region north of Traverse City known for vineyards, fruit farms, and views of Lake Michigan.
Many of the wineries are located on agricultural land, where the township allowed them as “special uses” under its zoning ordinance—but only under strict conditions. These included limits on hours, food service, events, and even the use of outdoor spaces. The township said the rules were meant to preserve rural character, reduce traffic and noise, and protect residents from excessive commercialization.
The wineries saw it differently, arguing that the rules were overly harsh and inconsistent with modern wine tourism. Some rules, like requiring that all wine be made from grapes grown within the township, or that officials pre-approve advertising and events, struck them as both unfair and unconstitutional. The wineries sued under several legal theories, including violations of the First Amendment (free speech and expression), the Commerce Clause (prohibiting discrimination against out-of-state goods), and the Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection).
After years of litigation and an 11-day trial, the federal court largely sided with the wineries. The judge found that the township’s rules on advertising and event approval unlawfully restricted free speech, and that the local-grape requirement violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against wines made with out-of-state fruit. While the township could still regulate land use to manage traffic and protect farmland, the court said it must do so in ways that respect constitutional rights and avoid economic protectionism.
The expert witness for the township, University of Pennsylvania Professor and nationally known writer on farmland preservation, Dr. Thomas Daniels, submitted an expert witness report that essentially argued that agritourism (in this case, wine tastings, weddings, and events) hindered farmland preservation by converting land to commercial operations. The court took the extraordinary step of finding Dr. Daniels’ testimony not credible.
The court particularly questioned the testimony that farmland preservation should keep the value of farmland low so that young farmers and others could easily enter the industry. The expert witness for the wineries challenged that principle, opining that land values need to be sufficient to fund the producers’ retirement.
The court also labeled an intervening group as a Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) group, and the motivations of the township as NIMBYism. The court granted the wineries $50 million in damages. The township’s insurance carrier has filed suit, denying coverage for the judgment.
The Wineries case carries national importance because it reflects a growing struggle across the country: how to balance local land-use control with modern agricultural and tourism economies. Communities across the country face similar tensions as small farms and wineries expand into venues for tastings, weddings, and events. In addition, Dr. Daniels’ position that agritourism hinders farmland preservation may become part of other litigation and policy discussions.
Richardson, Jesse, and Tiffany Lashmet. “Does Agritourism Hinder or Promote Farmland Preservation?” Southern Ag Today 5(49.5). December 5, 2025. Permalink
Leave a Reply