New Page 1

The following article was written after the latest meeting where Blissfest was requesting a temporary use permit from Emmet County to use 20 acres of leased property adjacent to the festival.

Blissfest Wins Another Round
ZBA grants temporary permit for camping on leased acreage

BY FRED GRAY
PETOSKEY NEWS REVIEW STAFF WRITER

The Emmet County Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday again granted the Blissfest music organization the right to use a leased 20-acre parcel next to its 120 acres of farm-forest land in rural Readmond Township
during its July 11-13 music festival.The ZBA action, by a 4-0 vote, following spirited objections by several
local residents, including Cross Village Township supervisor Martha Dyksterhouse. Dyksterhouse said the township board was concerned that the Blissfest would grow in numbers beyond the 4,500 paid ticket holders stipulated in the consent judgment between the Blissfest and Emmet County of March, 2002. She said there was no mechanism in the agreement for assuring that the numbers were adhered to, and she estimated there was room for up to 12,000 people to camp within the rules of the Department Environmental
Quality and Health Department. Blissfest executive director Jim Gillespie said the leased acreage had
been used for camping during the festival over the past 13 years. Only 16 of the 20 acres would actually be used for camping, he said. He said the Blissfest is committed to following the consent agreement limiting the numbers of attendees and that any concerns regarding the accounting of tickets can be handled by the review committee.County planner Max Putters said the disparity in numbers between the 294 residents of Cross Village Township and the over 5,000 people who attend the Blissfest, including some 700 volunteers who are admitted without charge, suggested the issue was worth reviewing. But he said the request appeared to be reasonable and should actually benefit the township by encouraging festival attendees not to leave the Blissfest site to camp elsewhere. That would also make it easier for Blissfest staff and security personnel to control operations, he said. He also noted that the board of Readmond Township, where the Blissfest property is located, had recommended approval of the request. ZBA chair Alyce Conrad said most of the concerns raised about the Blissfest at the meeting were more properly addressed by the oversight
committee set up under the consent judgment. She said the ZBA was limited to addressing the Blissfest's request for a temporary use permit for the leased parcel and said discussion of broader issues was inappropriate. Conrad recommended the permit be limited to a single year, instead of the possible two, to give the county more "clout" in the future. Board member Lowell Kosloskey said it had not been demonstrated to his satisfaction that use of the leased parcel last year had any adverse impact.
He then moved to approve the Blissfest request for one year, on condition that use of the property conformed to local and state regulations and the numbers of people using the parcel remained the same
as last year. Board members Al Behan and Don Hartman joined Conrad and Kosloskey in voting unanimously to approve the request.

The Emmet County Blissfest Review Committee had its inaugural meeting to give feedback on how the festival did this year. The committee is part of the consent judgment with the county and provides a forum for community review and suggestions for ways to better manage any negative festival impacts. Members of the committee were appointed by the County Commissioners and represented Readmond, Cross Village, Center and Friendship Townships. It also included newly appointed commissioner Les Atchison. Rose Leestma, a commissioner candidate, was appointed chairperson. All of the committee members had a chance to attend the festival sometime during the weekend and were satisfied with the management of the festival. Many of them gave glowing reports of how well the festival was managed. The county enforcement officer submitted a report that indicated the festival had no major issues. It did refer to one complaint regarding camping on the property next door to the festival. The county civil council was satisfied that the gathering there was private and Blissfest had followed through on their agreement not to use that property. The report also commented that dust control was used and traffic appeared to be following well but that there was a lack of signs leading into the festival. The report also indicated that the site was essentially cleaned up upon inspection 4 days after the festival.

The lone decent came via the Cross Village Township in the form of a letter outlined by their supervisor Martha Dyksterhouse. She indicated that they were still concerned with so-called collateral impacts by the festival. She listed the main concerns in a letter to the County Commissioners and Review Committee: 1) Provide additional Sheriff patrols to ensure safety 2) Relocate the festival entrance to reduce dust and traffic 3) More security at the township park to control crowd 4) Better signage 5)More stage announcements and brochures that promote Sturgeon Bay and eliminate any mention of the Cross Village Beach.
There was discussion of these points with the Blissfest representative and director countering some of the facts and rationale in the Cross Village Township suggestions. The organization questions the motives and logic of the township administration. It appears that the township administration is selectively enforcing its park ordinance and is attempting to exaggerate Blissfest impacts.

The Committee decided to write a report to the commissions that reflected the performance of the festival and to appoint a sub-committee to gather information regarding the concerns of Cross Village Township. Some suggestions include a possible seal-coat of Division Rd. and closing the East end of the road to local traffic during the festival weekend. The county sheriff has responded positively to providing money in the budget for patrols

The Emmet County Zoning Board of Appeals approved a temporary use request by Blissfest to allow camping and parking on leased property that is adjacent to the festival property. The camping area has been used since 1990 but required zoning approval in order to use it after the Consent Judgment agreement with the county.
Readmond Township Planning Committee and the Board approved the use for one year with the same conditions as the Consent Judgment and a review after the festival. Cross Village Township Supervisor Martha Dyksterhouse lobbied the Board for denial of the request stating that the festival under the new agreement was untested. She also had circulated a letter and spoke of a number of concerns she has with the festival as well as suggestions to move the entrance. Jim Gillespie argued for the Blissfest request indicating that the Festival was in fact time tested on there property for 14 years and that the Consent Judgement had sufficient safeguards to provide for the public welfare including size limits, performance standards, review and enforcement. He further stated that the spirit and intent of the mediated agreement was for the Blissfest have the opportunity to use the property and that the ZBA option was the only opportunity afforded the organization to pursue the request after attempts to get on the Planning Commission Agenda.
The Board on a 3-2 vote turned down a motion by Alice Conrad to deny the request. A second motion in favor of the request was put forward by Don Hartman with the rationale that it was logical to have the festival as it has been and then review it. The vote was 4-1 in favor of a the one year Temporary Use request.

Blissfest announced today that they will continue to seek implementation of the consent judgement option that provides for additional camping on 20 acres of leased neighboring property allowed for in the consent judgement with Emmet County. In April, Blissfest applied for a Special Use Permit under section 801-7 of the code for temporary use of the leased property but the Zoning administrator after consultation with civil council determined that the Temporary Use option under section 801-7 of the Zoning law was not applicable in this situation. The administrator had initially accepted the SUP to be filed under this section but has since determined that Article XXV, Section 2504-2(e) was more appropriate. He conceded that section 801-7 which makes reference to special events and temporary uses was problematic in the code. Since it is unclear if the county has jurisdiction over events and gatherings it is being suggested by Blissfest that the Emmet Planning Commission evaluate that section of the Zoning Code and make a determination as to its application and use in the code. Section 2504-2e allows for temporary uses as approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals if they meet an established criteria.

Meanwhile, the Readmond Township Planning Committee at its May 14,2002 meeting recommended approval of the Blissfest Special Use Request for temporary camping under section 801-7 for one year with evaluation and conditions equal to those imposed and Blissfest's property. The Readmond Board will vote on the recommendation at its meeting June 5.

The Blissfest and Emmet County have agreed to seek a resolution to their zoning dispute through facilitated mediation in an effort to avoid a trial scheduled for March 19-22, 2002. The mediation is scheduled for March 1, 2002 and will be facilitated by W. Peter Doren of Traverse City. The Blissfest will negotiate in good faith to find a resolution but continue to prepare for trial if the mediation is unsuccessful. Whenever two parties in a dispute can sit across the table and negotiate face to face its a good thing. It's good for the Blissfest Music Organization and its good for the taxpayers of Emmet County to find resolution and avoid the expense and time of a full trial. There is a lot of common ground to be found and we have been saying all along that negotiating is better than litigating. The Blissfest will be represented by their attorney Jim Olson, Executive Director, Jim Gillespie; President, Ron Fowler; Board Member, Dave Trautman. The latest news paper article with additional details can be read here.

Johnson upholds Zoning Board's decision against Blissfest

February 07, 2002

BY FRED GRAY
NEWS-REVIEW STAFF WRITER

Circuit Judge Charles Johnson has upheld the Emmet County Zoning Board of Appeals' decision overturning zoning administrator Max Putter's interpretation of a 1992 special use permit that gave the Blissfest limited authority to conduct its summer music festival on its Readmond Township property.
The ruling, released Wednesday, leaves the complex and long-festering Blissfest controversy before the court for four days of hearings beginning Tuesday, March 19, on substantive issues of property rights and the Blissfest's claim it has the right to continue to operate on its land as it has been permitted to do since 1992.
In his decision on the Blissfest appeal of the ZBA decision, Johnson answered each of the Blissfest's three basic arguments in favor of the ZBA.
First, he held that the appeal brought by a group of 29 neighbors in March 2001, almost a year after Putters' decision, was timely.
Secondly he ruled that the ZBA was authorized by statute and ordinance to make its decision.
And finally he ruled that the ZBA's decision was a "reasonable exercise of discretion granted to the ZBA," and there had been no abuse of that discretion.
Blissfest had maintained that the neighbors' appeal did not meet the 30-day limit set by the ZBA bylaws for filing an appeal, and therefore was untimely. But in his ruling Johnson agreed with the ZBA and county civic counsel Kathleen Abbott that the case was so unusual as to constitute an exception to the general rule as permitted by the bylaws.
Johnson said there was also good cause for the delay in the appeal "in that the nature of the matter being appealed was not one arising from a contested hearing where all surrounding property owners had been given notice, there was a hearing, and a public decision."
Citing precedent, Johnson said courts must grant "great deference to the construction of a statute by the agency legislatively chosen to enforce it."
He said a reviewing court has no authority to substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency, unless the agency's decision was, as expressed in the majority opinion in the 1985 case of Marrs vs. Board of Medicine:
"So palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will, but the perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment, but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason, but rather of passion or bias..."
Johnson said the standards of evidence - more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance - had been met.
Abbott was not available for comment but county controller Lyn Johnson said today "We're happy the procedural aspects were upheld by the judge, and we will proceed. We anticipated this would be the result."
Blissfest attorney James Olson of Traverse City said he would have obviously preferred to have prevailed, but he said Johnson's ruling had no legal effect on the issues in the case or on anyone other than the zoning administrator.
"The only thing that has gone away is that memorandum. The only thing the judge has done is to affirm the correction of the Putters' memo. The memo is not a permit, or special use permit, or an ordinance. It does not affect the Blissfest, which was not a party to the memo, and it does not affect the case that's before the court.
"It only affects the meaning of that memo, which is simply a document of evidence.
"The heart of our argument is that the Blissfest was issued a special use permit and it was told it was included in the permit for many years, that the Blissfest was issued land-use permits on two or three occasions over the eight or nine years, and until neighbors complained it operated on the county's permits and representation and now has a vested right to continue operating at this site.
"We believe the county is barred from enforcing its ordinance because of previous actions and because this is a three-day event that is not a nuisance.
"A lot of facts will come out in trial that have not been brought out before, and once there is a fair hearing, the court will make its finding and the Blissfest remains confident about the result."
"Many witnesses will testify to the lawfulness of the special use permit, because justice is on Blissfest's side. The government can't treat a businessman, businesswoman, or organization, one way for nine years and then change its mind. The Blissfest has operated lawfully during those nine years in everyone's eyes," Olson said.
Mark Hilal, who represented the group of neighbors at township meetings on the issue beginning in late 2000 until they withdrew as intervenors earlier this week, said he was pleased with Johnson's ruling.
"I think it evidences a common-sense decision to a common-sense problem, so it's not surprising to me. And it clarifies the remaining legal issues for the court to move forward with the current litigation.
"Now the task is to explain on what basis the Blissfest has a legal right and has had a legal right in the past to conduct its activities.
"Speaking for the neighbors, I'm sure that they will be pleased. All they have ever wanted in the past, as I've said all the way through, was that there was no special use permit. This is a vindication of their position from the first township meetings on this issue."
Putters said he felt the decision could have gone either way, but even had Johnson ruled against the ZBA, he said it would not have been a big help to the Blissfest.
"They could not have gone back to the 1992 level of activities on 40 acres of land" as required under his interpretation of the special use permit, he said. "They have been using about 100 acres in the last few years."
Blissfest executive director Jim Gillespie said: "It has frustrated us that we have had many interpretations from Max himself in various meetings on the conditions for the Blissfest in the memo, ranging from conditions as they were in 1992 to no conditions at all, in terms of size and scope."
County Commissioner Jim Tamlyn, who was on the ZBA at the time the decision was rendered and voted with the 3-2 majority, said, "Everyone pretty much knew this would have to end up in a court of law. I did not expect this to be end of it.
"Our decision was, 'Was there ever a permit given for this?' and we basically said no. The underlying issue is still there: If there was not a permit issued, where do they go from here?"

February 5, 2002

Blissfest Music Organization has agreed to allow the group of residents who intervened as parties against Blissfest in the pending lawsuit to be dismissed. As part of the agreement, Blissfest will not require the intervenor's to pay Blissfest's court costs and attorney fees as ordered by Judge Johnson. The intervenors were sanctioned by the court last month for improperly seeking a default judgment against Blissfest, and for refusing to answer discovery requests. They were not only ordered to pay sanctions, they were also ordered by the court to answer Blissfest's discovery requests for information on their claims against Blissfest. With the Intervenors' avoidance of discovery and now their request for dismissal, it appears that the intervenors concede that they cannot support their nuisance claim.

The Emmet County Circuit Court ruled that an Entry of Default initiated by the opponents of the the Blissfest was improper and the Entry of Default was set aside by Judge Johnson after a hearing on December 18, 2001. The opposition lawyer, Mark Hilal had claimed that he did not receive a mailing of answers to the original complaint back in June. However, the answers were in the record at the court and a proof of mailing to all parties had also been entered into the record by the Blissfest. Mr. Hilal was unable to convince the court that he had any reasonable basis or case law to defend his actions. In addition to setting the default aside, the judge also ruled in favor of Blissfest's motion for sanctions. He imposed fines and required the opposition to pay for the reasonable legal fees incurred by the Blissfest in defending the default entry.
At the same hearing, the court agreed with the Blissfest in their Motion to Compel Response to Discovery of Defendant's First Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Intervenors dated October 4, 2001. The Judge ordered the intervenors to produce these documents within 14 days or face further sanctions. In layman's terms this simply means that the court is ordering the intervenors to provide answers to questions posed to them by the Blissfest as part of the discovery process. Interrogatories are questionnaires sent to parties of a law suit that serve to provide detailed information and facts. In this case the intervenors are all being asked to produce facts that attempt to prove any alleged harm or nuisance. Depositions are also part of the discovery process and are simply interviews of lawsuit participants conducted by lawyers in the presence of a court recorder. The Blissfest had also requested several depositions of intervenors back in October that will now take place.
In related news, the Blissfest has waved its option for further oral arguements regarding the timeliness of the Emmet Count Zoning Board's decision to grant an extension of time to the intervenors as reported in the Nov. 23, 2001 update. The case will now be further examined by the Emmet Circuit Court with the addition of the recent findings. The judge will then make a ruling regarding the timeliness of the the intervenors appeal.

Nov. 7, 2001
The Emmet Circuit Court ruled today that the ZBA made insufficient findings regarding the timeliness and jurisdiction in its April 17, 2001 decision to strip he Blissfest Festival from a 1992 SUP. The judge remanded the case back to the ZBA to make findings in the matter of timeliness and will review their findings.

The Blissfest Music Organization will be in Emmet Circuit Court on Nov. 7, 2001 at 1:30pm for oral arguments regarding its challenge to a ZBA ruling last April 17, 2001 that stripped the Blissfest Festival from the the organization's Special Use Permit on its original 40 acre facility. The Blissfest will be arguing that the appeal brought to the ZBA by some area residents was not done in a timely manner and that the ZBA does not have jurisdiction to change SUP's. This is the first phase of the legal challenge initiated by the Blissfest .There is a trial date on the court docket for March 19, 2002 that will hear additional aspects of the case including the Blissfest's claims that the county has no jurisdiction over events like the Blissfest as well as the fact that the Blissfest has relied on the county allowing the festival for the past 21 years. In addition, the Blissfets is claiming that the county is selectively enforcing its zoning ordinance and that the Blissfest has vested rights on its property.

June 22, 2001
The 21st Annual Blissfest was been given the green light today after the citizens group opposed to the festival withdrew their request for a preliminary injunction hearing. A hearing date was set yesterday for July 11, 2001 only days ahead of the festival weekend after both Emmet County and the Blissfest allowed the group to be part of a pending lawsuit. Emmet County had withdrawn its preliminary injunction request only a week ago. In a brief statement to the press Mark Hilal, attorney for the group, stated that " We have explored our right to seek immediate injunctive relief and have decided to rely upon our elected officials to enforce the laws of the State of Michigan and the ordinances of Emmet County." He refused to elaborate on the statement. The county zoning administrator Max Putters said that subject to the advice of his counsel it appeared that if the festival took place, the organizers would be subject to civil action for violating county zoning which carries a $100 penalty for each day the violation continues. Blissfest in turn has put the county on notice that any violation would constitute selective enforcement of its zoning laws as there are other events in the same township that are not being threatened in this way. Blissfest has also taken the county to court regarding their zoning ordinance and complained that the county has no jurisdiction over gatherings and events and that Readmond Township has yet to pass a gathering ordinance which is its privilege. In addition the Blissfest contends that it had been operating with a valid Special Use Permit for 9 years until the Emmet Zoning Board of Appeals illegally striped them of their right to hold the festival as part of the SUP. The legal battle between the Blissfest and the county and citizens group will move forward in circuit court but there are no plans to schedule any hearings until after the festival.

Blissfest Music Organization director Jim Gillespie welcomed the reprieve and was relieved to be able to fully focus on the final planning for the organization�s premiere summer event. He said that last minute preparations were in full swing and that the organization is planning to stand by its good will gesture to limit ticket sales to this year�s festival as well as other conditions that would further minimize inconvenience to the local community during the weekend. Gillespie added that the festival attendees will need to take greater care to honor the tranquility and peaceful setting of the festival farm while they are enjoying the cultural enrichment opportunities offered by the festival. Special care will be focused on beach etiquette at the Cross Village Township Beach and minimizing crowding by directing folks to the Sturgeon Bay State Beach. Additional efforts will be implemented to control for youthful exuberance and MIP violations at the festival. Youth under 18 will not be admitted without a parent or responsible adult and those under 21 without parental supervision will be required to camp in an alcohol free youth camp. The festival will also initiate a community response program to address proactively any off site problems that may arise in the community during the weekend.

The Blissfest 2001 Traditional Music Festival came a step closer to reality today with a unanimous vote by the Emmet County Commissioners on advise of their counsel to withdraw a pending preliminary injunction request in Emmet Circuit Court. The preliminary injunction was an attempt to stop this year�s festival from occurring on the Blissfest�s 120 acre facility in Readmond Township. The Blissfest had earlier challenged a County Zoning Board of Appeals ruling against including the festival in the organization�s existing Special Use Permit. Blissfest director Jim Gillespie said today that this is a positive step and allows the festival organizers to proceed with plans for this year�s event without interference from the county and then argue the merits of the case at a later date. Gillespie indicated that the case is important in terms of clarifying the roles of the county and townships regarding special events and gatherings as well as property rights. He also stated that the Blissfest still intends to cap the size of the event at last years level of paid attendance and to continue to improve health and safety measures to insure minimal impact on the local community. Gillespie stated that they will be improving policies to control MIP�s more effectively by requiring parental supervision of anyone under 18 and initiating an alcohol free youth camping area for those attendees who are under 21 years of age. In addition the organization is planning on a community liaison program that is intended to improved communication and response in the local community.
Blissfest must still contend with a citizen's group that has made a Motion to Intervene in the county's case against the organization. A hearing is set on the motion for June 21, 2001 at 1pm at the Emmet Co. Circuit Ct. The group may also file suit against the Blissfest and attempt their own preliminary injunction in an effort to stop this year's event. Gillespie indicated that this group continues to take an absolutist position and has not been willing to be reasonable and discuss ways to address their needs.

Blissfest Music Organization, a non-profit folk arts organization, filed a lawsuit late Tuesday, May 8, 2001, in Emmet County Circuit Court to protect its annual weekend Blissfest music event that has taken place in Emmet County for the past 20 years. Blissfest has lined up another outstanding group of performers for this year�s music festival scheduled for the second weekend in July - July 13^th through July 15^th.

A recent action of the Emmet County Zoning Board of Appeals has created confusion about the Blissfest�s rights to use its private property for the festival. The Board of Appeals overturned a Blissfest reference by longtime County Planner, Max Putters, in a memorandum sent to the Planning Commission on April 5, 2000. Putters noted that the Blissfest event was a recognized use at the time a special use permit was approved for Blissfest�s original 40-acre parcel in 1992, and that the annual event was considered part of the special use permit. A small group of residents who have only recently protested against Blissfest, filed an appeal to the Board of Appeals, claiming that Putters� memorandum was wrong. Blissfest filed a limited appearance, contesting the jurisdiction and authority of the Board of Appeals to hear the appeal because the memorandum involved a matter decided in 1992, almost 9 years ago. Blissfest also noted that the Board of Appeals can hear only "rulings" and "determinations" made under the zoning ordinance, and not disputes over an informal memorandum. Additionally, the small group of protesters waited almost a year before it complained of Putters� memo, an unreasonable delay resulting in prejudice to Blissfest, its performers and the attendees of the festival. The educational, economic and cultural contributions to the community by the Blissfest would be harmed by any attempt to interfere with the annual fundraising event. The Board of Appeals refused to rule on Blissfest�s jurisdictional and timeliness claims, choosing instead to overturn Putters� reference to Blissfest in his April 5, 2000 memorandum.

While the Board of Appeals� ruling did not affect the rights or interests of Blissfest to continue using its land for its annual 3-day festival, it has confused the public and the established view of county zoning officials regarding the lawful uses of Blissfest�s property. Blissfest asserts that its right to use its property for the annual event is supported by various legal theories and precedent, some of which are based upon its 13 year historical use of their property for the event.

Blissfest�s suit requests that the court nullify the Zoning Board of Appeal�s decision, because it did not have the legal authority to act on Putters� memorandum, and for the court to declare and adjudge that Blissfest�s annual event is an established lawful activity. Blissfest has also requested that the court grant a stay of the Board of Appeals� action or, alternatively, issue a preliminary injunction protecting the status quo of Blissfest�s annual festival, pending the outcome of the suit.

Recently, in an attempt to cooperate with the county, Blissfest made a formal request for a Special Use Permit, to allow the current camping and parking uses on its 80-acres, adjacent to its original 40-acres. This was done in the spirit of cooperation and as an extra precaution regarding the safe handling of the camping and parking uses. However, due to the confusion over the 1992 special use permit - whether it affects Blissfest�s established rights and lawful use to hold the event each year - the recent request was withdrawn pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

"We have always cooperated with this community. Blissfest Members live in this community. We have been part of this community for 20 years. We only want to continue to provide educational programs that preserve our shared cultural heritage on the property that we have invested 13 years of money, time and energy." said Blissfest Executive Director Jim Gillespie. "This year�s festival will go forward, and we will have made every effort to make sure that it is fun, safe, educational and entertaining for everyone."

Blissfest is represented by Jim Olson and Kristyn Houle of the law firm of Olson & Bzdok, P.C., Traverse City.

Contact: Jim Gillespie, Executive Director, Blissfest Music Organization (231)348-2815

The Blissfest Music Organization regretfully withdrew its long term plan for a Traditional Arts Education Center at the Blissfest site after a political firestorm occurred. A small group of citizens in the area hired a lawyer with the intent of shutting down the Blissfest and used scare tactics, distortions and intimidation to throw a monkey wrench into the process. An alternative Special Use Permit proposal was then submitted to allow the use of additional auxiliary camping on 80 acres of the Blissfest property and adjoining leased property during the weekend festival only. This additional permit strategy, along with the existing S.U.P.(Since 1992) that had allowed the festival on the original 40 acres, was hoped would at least keep the festival going. The Readmond Township planning committee, chaired by a newcomer who appeared to have a new provincialism agenda, again rejected the new plan and the Readmond Board accepted their recommendation but with a qualification and amendment that stated they were not voting against the Blissfest but felt that there were not adequate zoning tools to deal with the Blissfest. In fact the townshipo has always had the jurisdiction to pass a gatherings ordinance but has chosen not to. The county put a hold on the proceedings regarding the SUP request as the opposition petitioned the Zoning Board of Appeals in an attempt to invalidate the Festival portion of the exisiting SUP on the 40 acres. The Appeals Board Met on April 17th to hear the petition ruled against the festival on a 3 to 2 vote. The Blissfest is challenging the board's jurisdiction and the timeliness of the appeal itself and has filed suit against the Zoning Board of Appeals in Emmet Co. Circuit Court. We believe we have a good case and will prevail but it is costing us a lot of time and resources for sure. It is time for the Blissfest faithful to mobilize and support our right to have the Blissfest on our property. We are planning the festival despite all this uncertainty and are getting support from the broader community. We will be imposing limits on the festival size to keep it at the size it has been the past two years. Help by donating to the legal defense fund or volunteering some time at the festival this year.