The legal battle between the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) and Peninsula Township continues to roll on, but it won’t do so with the direct involvement of the local citizen group that had sought to intervene in the lawsuit. Judge Paul Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on Thursday denied a motion from Protect the Peninsula (PTP) to intervene in the matter. That ruling comes eight months after PTP first lodged its motion, and several weeks after Peninsula Township trustees voted unanimously to reject a settlement agreement with WOMP.

PTP is an advocacy group of Old Mission Peninsula residents, characterized in court documents as “a self-described watchdog over Peninsula Township’s government, policies, and decisions related to land use inconsistent with the community’s agricultural and residential character.” The group had sought to intervene in the WOMP/Peninsula Township lawsuit under the argument that its members had a “strong interest” in the potential outcome of the case. Under the law, third parties can sometimes intervene in civil cases if they can prove that they have “a personal stake in the outcome.”

WOMP filed its lawsuit against Peninsula Township last fall, alleging that the township was wielding zoning laws in ways that unfairly and perhaps even unconstitutionally restricted their business practices. Current restrictions of peninsula wineries prohibit them from hosting weddings or live amplified music, running restaurant operations, staying open as late as their liquor licenses allow, and more.

PTP’s motion to intervene dates back to February. At the time, Tracy Jane Andrews – PTP’s attorney – explained to the The Ticker that PTP saw the case as a challenge of “whether [the township] can regulate wineries.” Based on that interpretation, she believed PTP would have enough personal stake in the case for a judge to grant their motion: “I think PTP does have a strong interest in maintaining the township's ability to regulate land uses when they affect neighbors and neighboring land uses.”

Judge Maloney disagreed with PTP’s arguments, denying the motion to intervene largely on the grounds that PTP did not prove that it had “substantial legal interest” in the case.

“The Court finds that PTP does not have a substantial interest in this litigation,” Maloney wrote in his ruling. “First, PTP is not regulated by the ordinances at issue because it is not a winery or a farm. PTP does not claim to be regulated by the ordinances; rather, it claims that this lawsuit implicates its mission to ‘maintain the rural and agricultural character of the peninsula.’ PTP appears to assert that it has a general interest in this lawsuit because it seeks to maintain the current ordinances, and such an interest is not enough to establish the requisite ‘substantial legal interest.’”

Maloney continued: “As Plaintiffs point out in their response to PTP’s motion to intervene, if PTP’s asserted interest was enough to intervene in this case, then every resident of Peninsula Township could intervene.”

The judge also argued that Peninsula Township already “adequately represents PTP’s interests in the case,” and that allowing PTP to intervene would therefore only create redundancy. “Ultimately, both PTP and Peninsula Township want the zoning ordinances to remain, and Plaintiffs want the zoning ordinances to be amended,” Maloney wrote. “Because PTP and Peninsula Township seek the same relief, there is no need for PTP to intervene.”

In a statement to The Ticker in response to the ruling, PTP said it is “evaluating options, including an appeal. Based on the large numbers of people who attended and spoke at the Peninsula Township board's community meeting on October 6, it is clear that the only group that wants to significantly change winery ordinances are the wineries themselves. We support the township board’s decision to reject the wineries’ proposed settlement, and we appreciate that the board is developing a citizens committee to review winery complaints and ordinances. Our position has always been and continues to be that changes to the township's zoning ordinances should be a public process with input from and to the collective benefit of all facets of the community.”

The ruling ends PTP’s attempt to intervene in the lawsuit, but not the lawsuit itself. Last month, it appeared that WOMP and Peninsula Township were nearing a settlement in the case. But township trustees rejected that settlement in early October, deciding instead to “form a citizens committee to review the issues raised by WOMP in a public process that would end the lawsuit as a community decision.” Even without their motion to intervene granted by the court, some of PTP’s members could still be involved in the lawsuit that way. On Wednesday, the Peninsula Township board of trustees voted to appoint 11 residents to the citizens committee, including two township board members (Rob Manigold and Isaiah Wunsch), three Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula representatives (to be determined), three Protect The Peninsula members (Erin Gartland, John Wunsch, and John Jacobs), and three at-large members of the public (Brit Eaton, Rudy Rudolph, and Jennifer Venegoni).