Westwood MA
Public Notices and Press Releases
Friday November 7 2025 3:15pm

Clapboardtree Street abutter supporting the Bean Farm

This post expresses the views and opinions of the author(s) and not necessarily that of Westwood Minute management or staff.

Letter to the Editor

November 7, 2025

From John J. Cronin Jr

651 Clapboardtree Street

The Westwood Land Trust and its advocates are in dire need of a Westwood history lesson

The WLT and its advocates seem to assume that the Clapboardtree Meadow was always just a meadow. This is demonstrably wrong – the meadow was once actually a farm; in fact, it was two farms. A quick stroll through the history of Clapboardtree Street bears this out.

From the late 1960’s into the early 1980’s, Charlie Bean farmed the field between the current Bean Farm and the current driveway at 665 Clapboardtree Street. At the time, Robert Prout owned the expansive property at 665 Clapboardtree St and he allowed Charlie to farm the land. Let’s turn the clock back even further. Going back more than 100 years, prior to being known as Prout Farm, the land in question was part of Moses Gay Farm, known simply as Gay Farm, a 1,000+ acre cattle and dairy operation.

Indeed, the house at 711 Clapboardtree Street where the Bean family grew up and where Mrs. Bean currently lives was the original homestead for the entire Gay Farm. In fact, when working at the farm as kids, the four Bean boys would routinely dig up old milk bottles with the label “Gay Farm” etched in glass.

The point of this simple history lesson is that many “meadows” in this country were once farmland – the current Clapboardtree Meadow is no exception and has TWICE been used as a farm for long periods of time. Of course, when land is no longer actively farmed, it becomes – you guessed it – a meadow, a natural process that happens organically. It is worth noting, disturbingly, that this meadow is mowed down each and every year at the request of the Westwood Land Trust.

Some other important facts: The Clapboardtree Meadow is owned by The Town of Westwood, not the Westwood Land Trust. The sole reason the Town is pursuing litigation against the WLT is because the WLT refused to comply with the plain and simple language of the Conservation Restriction. That language includes a specific exemption for agricultural uses on the former Prout Farm and states that the WLT cannot “unreasonably” withhold approval for a request to use the land for farming purposes.

Importantly, both the Select Board and the Conservation Commission have voted unanimously to bring an eight-acre portion of former Prout /Gay Farm back to life. The WLT has simply ignored those votes and acted as if the unambiguous language of the conservation restriction does not exist as explicitly written.

It is worth repeating: For about 10 years, the Beans have tried to engage the WLT, only to see their efforts stymied each and every time. The response has always been “no,” with little to no explanation. The WLT’s stonewalling is exactly the kind of “unreasonable” behavior the conservation restriction explicitly prohibits. Frustrated, the Beans approached the Town two years ago to help rectify the situation. Subsequently, the Town approached the WLT both formally and informally, but like the Beans, were rebuffed with little to no recourse.

The bottom line is that our current Town administrators absolutely recognize that it is within the Town’s clear and legal right to allow farming once again on the parcel of farm land contiguous to the Bean Farm. Without the additional acreage, the Bean Farm, which has enhanced the community of Westwood for decades, along with the multi-generational farm stand providing fresh fruits and vegetables, will undoubtedly disappear. If the Bean Farm disappears, the Town of Westwood will be left with nothing except a violated conservation restriction, the extinction of Westwood’s last remaining operating farm, and last but not least, a substantial tax break for the Westwood Land Trust and its donors.

My message to all is very simply: for generations to come, The Bean Farm must remain a foundational centerpiece for the residents of the Town of Westwood.

Please support The Bean Farm.

Respectfully,

John J Cronin Jr

651 Clapboardtree St

Life long Westwood Resident

1985 Westwood High School Graduate

5 6
I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive

Replies

11-09-2025 6:45am

Great history Cro.  Thank you!!

The WW Select Board was left no option but to pursue legal recourse.  A Conservation Restriction (CR) is a serious document and both parties must adhere to the both the letter and the spirit of what was agreed upon.  Allowing one party to essentially violate the agreement sets a very bad precedent for the many parcels of land in WW with CRs - forever.

The landowners that donated the property to the town have corresponded with the Select Board urging them to drop the suit, claiming they never envisioned the land would be farmed.  If that's true, given the family's intimate involvement with dozens of CRs, why would they have listed Agriculture as an allowed use in the first place?

I suspect what's really at play is a combination of NIMBYism, personality clashes and short-sightedness.

I'll look forward to more corn from Bean Farm!!

Chris McKeown

3
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-09-2025 7:23pm

I wholeheartedly agree that CRs are serious documents that should be upheld and respected, much like the laws and ethical guidelines that dictate how a municipality can and cannot use public resources and finances on behalf of a private entity. I also agree that allowing one party to violate those agreements sets a terrible precedent for the conserved parcels in Westwood.

I think a comparison between two CRs, both held by the Land Trust and both crafted by and with the McFarlands, is appropriate here. These two CRs were only crafted a couple of years apart (2000 for 665 Clapboardtree and 2004 for 682 Clapboardtree).

We have 665 Clapboardtree, the property in question. The pertinent parts (excerpted from several sections of the CR) reads as follows:

“Purpose. The Premises contain unusual, unique or outstanding qualities, the protection of which in their predominately natural or open condition will be of benefit to the public. These qualities, and the public benefits resulting from the conservation of the Premises include, without limitation:

  1. The Premises contain substantial wetlands, forests and open fields, providing a diversity of wildlife habitat, including early successional habitat.
  2. The Premises, in its natural state, affords views and vistas across its open fields from Clapboardtree Street (a public way), providing substantial scenic value to the public.
  3. The preservation of the Premises in their predominately natural or open condition preserves the historical rural character of the area.
  4. The Premises constitute land of conservation interest to the Town of Westwood, and the protection of the Premises is consistent with the Town of Westwood Comprehensive Plan, dated April 1999, which advocates preserving, protecting and enhancing the rural character of the Town, its open space and its wildlife habitat.
  5. The protection of the Premises will conserve prime agricultural soils, which according to the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, are present on approximately 10 acres of the Premises, consisting of Paxton fine sandy loam and Woodbridge fine sandy loam soils (Class II).”

“Exceptions to Otherwise Prohibited Acts and Uses within Area 1 and Area 2. The following acts and uses of Area 1 and Area 2, otherwise prohibited in subsection A, are permitted, but only if such acts and uses do not materially impair the purpose of this Conservation Restriction or other significant conservation interests:

  • Subject to the prior approval of the Grantee, and pursuant to a conservation management plan or other standards as may be established from time to time by Grantee (which may, without limitation, limit or regulate the permissible time(s), extent, and methods to be utilized):

c) Agricultural activities, including in connection therewith, and without limitation, the use of fertilizers and herbicides, clearing, plowing, planting and similar agricultural activities and (but only with the consent of all of the owners of the Premises, which consent may be withheld by any owner at its sole discretion) the construction and use of a roadside farm stand or similar structures.

Where Grantee's approval is required, Grantee shall grant or withhold its approval in writing within 60 days of receipt of Grantor's written request therefor. Unless otherwise specifically stated herein, Grantee’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, but shall only be granted upon a showing that the proposed activity shall not materially impair the purposes of this Conservation Restriction.”

There is mention of preserving agricultural soils as a purpose, and a discretionary exempted agricultural use (NOT a by-right allowed use) which cannot be unreasonably withheld, with the criteria for “unreasonable” resting on whether the proposed use would impair the purposes of the restriction. A distinction I think is missing from most of these conversations is, agriculture doesn’t necessarily mean farming. Agriculture can be setting up apiaries, growing mushrooms, raising wildflowers, low impact things that would not destroy the meadow or harm the biodiversity in the habitats. I keep hearing the assertion that given the McFarlands’ extensive involvement with CRs in town, why would they include the option if it weren’t meant to be used. I would point out that the Purpose section only refers to preserving the soils, not using them, and any agricultural use would be via exception to the prohibited uses, not as an automatically allowed use.

In sharp contrast, we also have 682 Clapboardtree, which also includes agricultural language as follows (excerpted from several sections of the CR):

“Purpose. It is the purpose of this restriction that the Premises be forever retained and preserved as open-field farmland, meadow and woodland for agricultural and natural resource conservation uses and be utilized in a manner which conserves the quality of the soils for open-field agricultural use.

  1. The Premises contain forest, meadow, pasture and open space providing a diversity of wildlife habitat, including early successional habitat.
  2. The preservation of the Premises in its predominately natural and open condition preserves the historic rural character of the area and its agricultural past.
  3. The Premises include approximately 168 feet of frontage on Clapboardtree Street, a public way of semi-rural setting and character offering scenic vistas of and across the Premises; protection of the Premises will contribute to public enjoyment of the rural character and scenic qualities of this public way.
  4. The Premises constitute land of conservation interest to the Town of Westwood, and the protection of the Premises is consistent with the Town of Westwood Comprehensive Plan, dated February 2000, which advocates preserving, protecting and enhancing the rural character of the Town, agricultural uses, its open space and its wildlife habitat.
  5. The Premises abut approximately 25 acres of agricultural land under M.G.L. 61A to the south/southwest and 28 acres of land to the west that was previously placed under a Conservation Restriction by the Grantor. This area, which will ultimately be connected to several restricted parcels to the north, is intended to form a "Green Belt" through the Town of Westwood, thereby providing substantial value to the public by protecting, preserving and enhancing the character of the Town, its open space and wildlife habitat. See Exhibit C, "Context Plan", attached hereto.
  6. The protection of the Premises from development will conserve prime agricultural soils, which according to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, are present on the Premises and consist of Paxton fine sandy loam and Woodbridge fine sandy loam soils (Class II). The permitted agricultural use of the Premises further encourages local farming initiatives, contributes to the viability of the agriculture in the region, and preserves the rural character of the area.”

“B. Permissive Acts and Uses within Parcel A "Perimeter Buffer Area." The use of Parcel A for agriculture, farming or outdoor recreational activities is permissible throughout Parcel A including within the ten (10) foot "Perimeter Buffer Area" beginning at the Northwest border of the Premises and extending to East border.”

The following is a non-discretionary exempted use: “The use of Parcel A for agriculture and/or farming including, the cultivation and harvesting of crops, fruit trees, nut trees, Christmas trees, berry bushes, ornamental trees or plants, flowers and hay, and the right to mow grass, reclaim fields, open up new fields and trails for permitted recreational uses. Permitted agricultural and recreational uses also include the right to raise, shelter and graze livestock, install and utilize sight-pervious fencing, a farmstand, barn, shed or stable, provided that any such activity is designed to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on soil and water quality, and other conservation and scenic values of the Premises.”

This language is clear, and outlines how the agricultural uses are a primary goal for the property at 682 Clapboardtree. We again see mention of preserving agricultural soils, which is followed up with a note about actually using them. Agriculture is a by-right use in one area of this property, and the exempted use for parcel A is not at the discretion of the Land Trust, it’s simply allowed. For me, the implication that the McFarlands are somehow revising history on their intent is not only offensive, but also easily countered by comparing these two CRs. Their intent for farming (and yes, the word “farming” is specifically used) of 682 is clear; their intent to potentially allow some version of unspecified agriculture for 665 (a property for which their primary intent was to preserve open space, biodiversity, habitats, and a meadow that already existed at the time the CR was enacted), at the discretion of the WLT, also seems quite clear. It’s worth noting that in #5 of the Purpose section of the CR for 682, there is mention made of 28 acres to the west of 682 previously put into CR which was intended to be part of a Green Belt, protecting and preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Those 28 acres include the meadow in question at 665 Clapboardtree. Again, I think that speaks to the intent the donor had for that property.

In denying the exemption, the Land Trust followed a process which included commissioning an ecological study which documented everything that would be lost if the meadow were to be destroyed to make way for agriculture. They made an evidence-based decision. The phrase “not unreasonably withheld” doesn’t remove any authority from the Land Trust; in fact, the CR expressly entrusts them with that responsibility. It just means the Land Trust must act in good faith and base its decision on the CR’s stated conservation purposes. Whether a denial is “reasonable” depends on evidence about impairment, for example, the results of the ecological study.

I also agree with you about short-sightedness; I find it incredibly short-sighted that the select board would opt to pursue this litigation, especially given that they never issued an RFP, or initiated any kind of public, competitive process in keeping with the law. I remain disappointed, and hopeful that if this lawsuit does proceed to trial, that the court will uphold the CR and the Land Trust’s authority as intended.

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-10-2025 1:06pm

Hi Ellen, As someone that i respect and recognize as a respectful debater of issues, how do you feel about WLT banning me from their FB page?  You read the content, I was respectful, but disagreed.  I did not appreciate one the board members daughters presenting themselves as objective, but certainly did not violate any social norms other than having an opinion.  For a conservation group that purports to have the town’s best interest in mind, that’s a strange move.  Below is the note that I sent them.  Do you think they will even reply? 

TO: Westwood Land Trust- 

Hello,

I am not sure who in the organization made the decision, but I wanted to reach out to let you know that I am quite concerned that an organization that purports to be dedicated to the town, would block me on Facebook for disagreeing with you. I am a long term resident, with a track record of volunteerism in the town, to try to silence me because I have a view point that does not align with yours, is un-American and certainly not it the spirit of the founding of the trust. All while folks baselessly lob accusations at our town officials on your FB page is a disgrace. Have some courage and stand up to healthy debate, don’t put one of your kids on there to just comment that we are all uninformed because we don’t agree. Sad.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-10-2025 10:56pm

Ellen, with all due respect, you weren’t part of the negotiations 25 years ago when these CRs were created. The people outside of the McFarlands who drafted and signed the CR on 665 Clapboardtree know the truth with regard to agricultural intent. This was the McFarlands first property they put into conservation, and it was my late father who introduced them to the idea of conserving this property to begin with. My father’s only request was to put the agricultural use language in the CR. The court will decide the matter.

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-11-2025 10:53am

Chuck, with all due respect, Ellen has every right to provide her perspective both as a resident and a member of the PB. I get the sense that you feel a sense of derived authority on the matter given your father’s anecdotal relationship to the parcel, which I find to be baseless. If your father had wished to ensure his ability to use this property on an agricultural basis, he should have purchased it… he did not from my understanding. Furthermore placing a Conservation Restriction on a property is not the appropriate mechanism to ensure the use of the parcel at a future time. To state and federal entities that would be a clear attempt to avoid paying property tax and a fraudulent claim of property donation when the owners anticipated the actualization and monetization of the property.

With that said, I have extremely deep concerns about the Town expending municipal funds for litigation on the Bean Farm’s behalf. I was supportive of the petition to the SB for your use of the property if it aligns with the CR, but the reality is the WLT is the holder of this conservation mechanism and interprets what falls within those excepted uses. There has been this thinly veiled narrative that if this litigation sides with the Town that there will be a RFP, but at every turn it becomes abundantly clear that is a lie. The entirety of this action is to “Save Bean Farm”, this is obvious in the words and actions of the Town and the Bean Farm. It was concerning enough that my tax dollars are being spent on behalf of this litigation for your family, but being lied to by my Town government and its’ officials is disheartening to say the least. It progenerates this growing body of mistrust that I had been hopeful, apparently naively so, that new elected members of Town government could change and overcome.

Given the case law below I strongly suggest Westwood residents file a complaint to the Mass Office of the Attorney General (OIG) here: https://www.mass.gov/forms/report-fraud-waste-or-abuse-of-government-funds-or-property-to-the-oig-online-form

Case law:

  • Mass. Const., Art. XI, c. 2, s. 1 and Art. IV, c. 1, s. 1;
  • Lowell v. City of Boston, 111 Mass. 454, (1873);
  • Matthews v. Inhabitants of Westborough, 131 Mass. 521 (1881);
  • Mead v. Acton, 139 Mass. 341(1885);
  • In re Opinion of Justices, 190 Mass. 611 (1906);
  • Whittaker v. Salem, 216 Mass. 483 (1914);
  • In re Opinion of Justices, 240 Mass. 616 (1922);
  • Jones v. Inhabitants of Town of Natick, 267 Mass. 567(1929);
  • D.N. Kelley & Son, Inc. v. Selectmen of Fairhaven, 294 Mass. 570 (1936);
  • Quinlan v. City of Cambridge, 320 Mass. 124 (1946);
  • Eisenstadt v. County of Suffolk, 331 Mass. 570 (1954)
1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive