Correcting Misinformation About Protect the Peninsula: A Perspective

In a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over Peninsula Township’s zoning regulations, Protect the Peninsula (PTP) board member Mike Dettmer has issued a comprehensive response to recent public criticism of the organization’s role in the winery lawsuit that has divided the Old Mission Peninsula community.

PTP, a local nonprofit established in 1979 and formally incorporated in 1988, intervened in the high-profile lawsuit brought by local wineries against Peninsula Township. The organization has faced mounting criticism from Todd Anson, who has published multiple commentaries questioning PTP’s motives and transparency.

The dispute centers around a $49 million judgment against the township in a lawsuit originally seeking $200 million in damages. The wineries challenged decades-old zoning ordinances that restricted certain commercial activities on agricultural lands, including hosting large events and weddings.

“PTP is transparent about who its board and members are and about its interests and intentions in defending against the winery lawsuit,” Dettmer wrote, countering accusations that the group operates anonymously with obscure objectives. He noted that PTP members have testified under oath to support their intervention in the case.

According to court documents cited by Dettmer, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized PTP members’ property and quality of life interests as protected under Michigan zoning law, allowing the organization to become a defendant in the lawsuit.

The legal battle has grown increasingly contentious since the July 2025 judgment. PTP maintains that it is effectively fighting the $49 million award with “compelling, well-supported legal arguments” according to the appeal schedule. Dettmer emphasized that PTP was the only party that did not request a delay in proceedings.

At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of “Guest Activity Use” provisions in the township’s zoning ordinances. PTP argues the $49 million judgment resulted from a flawed claim that this term was unconstitutionally vague, despite what they describe as clear definitions and specific permitted categories in the ordinance.

The conflict has broader implications for agricultural land preservation in Michigan. Barbara Wunsch, a PTP member and local farmer, testified about concerns that new commercial activities at wineries could increase farmland prices and threaten the sustainability of traditional farming operations like cherry growing, which has historically defined the Old Mission Peninsula’s agricultural character.

Supporting this view, Dr. Tom Daniels, an expert on agricultural land use, testified that authorizing non-farming commercial activities in agricultural districts would put upward pressure on farmland values. This concern aligns with recent reporting by the Record-Eagle that cited skyrocketing agricultural land costs as the main threat to Michigan farmers, who lost 100,000 acres of farmland in a single year.

Dettmer also addressed claims that PTP holds “veto power” over township decisions, explaining that as a party to the lawsuit, PTP’s consent is legally necessary for any consent judgment – a standard legal process rather than a special arrangement.

The challenged ordinances, adopted between 1998 and 2004, were the result of public meetings and community input, according to Dettmer’s account. He traced the history of the “Guest Activity Use” provisions to accommodations requested by Chateau Chantal founder Bob Begin, which evolved through community discussions to balance winery revenue streams with preserving the agricultural character of the peninsula.

As the legal battle continues, PTP has called for greater transparency from critics, particularly Anson, asking him to clarify his interests and objectives in the case. Meanwhile, the appeal process moves forward with significant implications for the future of zoning, agriculture, and tourism on the Old Mission Peninsula.