Westwood MA
Public Notices and Press Releases
Tuesday November 11 2025 4:58pm

Part 1: 1999 - December 3, 2025: Want to Know More About the Lawsuit, Town of Westwood v. Westwood Land Trust? Summary and Updates

My purpose is to provide an objective summary of facts and arguments in this matter from April 30, 1999 through January 16, 2026.  The latest summary of activity in this lawsuit --through January 23, 2026-- appears  at  https://westwoodminute.town.news/g/westwood-ma/n/361716/part-2-want-know-more-about-lawsuit-town-westwood-v-westwood-land-trust

Lawsuit Updates:

 On January 23, the Westwood Land Trust filed a motion to amend its answer and counterclaim, with a memorandum of law; the Town of Westwood filed a memorandum in opposition to the Land Trust's motion. For details, see  https://westwoodminute.town.news/g/westwood-ma/n/361716/part-2-want-know-more-about-lawsuit-town-westwood-v-westwood-land-trust

There is no event scheduled before the court in this matter, at this time. Daily court schedules can be found at mass.gov/locations/norfolk-county-superior-court

At a remote hearing on December 3, 2025, Superior Court Judge  Connolly heard from counsel for both parties on their respective motions to dismiss the case  on the pleadings (the Town’s Complaint and Answer to the Land Trust’s Counter Complaint,  and the Land Trust’s Answer to the Town’s Complaint. The judge took the matter under advisement, and as of January 16, no decision has been announced.

Source:

*           *                *              *                *                 *                *               *                 * 
All statements or facts in this summary appear in the pleadings filed in Norfolk Superior Court, which can be downloaded at no cost from the Mass. Courts website, athttps://www.masscourts.org/eservices/searchresults.page?x=RNdywQK53X-kpDdLH5MLPJOeaMRe0JexbO8wiTUTzeMrCzFnBDN1VfSnsGHflbDvaM8Ln4ZKor3K4w-whB80-w

The Town  of Westwood’s  Complaint and exhibits only, (but not the Land Trust’s Answer and Counterclaim in this case) are also available on the Town of Westwood website, here.
Minutes of the Westwood Select Board can be accessed  at  https://westwoodtownma.iqm2.com/citizens/default.aspx? 
And minutes of the Westwood Conservation Commission can be accessed at  https://www.townhall.westwood.ma.us/government/agendas-minutes/minutes/conservation-commission-minutes

TIMELINE

April 30, 1999      Duncan and Ellen McFarland (McFarland)  purchased 665 Clapboardtree Street, an approximately  28-acre parcel of land. and also granted a Conservation Restriction (CR) over the parcel to the Westwood Land Trust.  You can read the full CR in Exhibit B to the Town of Westwood’s Complaint.

That parcel was subdivided by deeds from McFarland into Lot A, which contains a single-family home built circa 1904, and Lot B, unimproved land for the past several years known as Clapboardtree Meadow, and before that,  as part of  Prout Farm. 

May 1, 2000.  The Westwood Select Board (Patrick Ahearn, Anthony Antonellis and Michael Walsh) signed a document formally acknowledging and accepting the CR that had been put on the land at 665 Clapboardtree Street, including Clapboardtree Meadow. See, Complaint, Exhibit B, page 9.

May 24, 2000    McFarland conveyed Lot B to the Westwood Preservation Society (WPS), a Massachusetts not-for-profit corporation. The Westwood Land Trust continued to hold the CR at the time of that conveyance, and does so in perpetuity.

May 24, 2000     The WPS gifted Lot B to the Town of Westwood. In legal parlance, the Town  then owned  (and still owns) the “servient estate,” Lot B, including Clapboardtree Meadow;  Westwood Land  Trust holds the “dominant estate,” the Conservation Restriction over the Land . In 2000, when the Town became owner of the  land, it took  title subject to the Land Trust’s power to enforce many limitations on any party’s use of the land, as specified in the CR document.

The Conservation Restriction, reprinted in full in Exhibit B to the Town of Westwood's Complaint, is a binding agreement that remains with the land no matter who owns it, as it passes from party to party, in perpetuity.  The CR recites the purpose of protecting the Lot B parcel, which includes the Meadow.

A number of acts and uses are expressly prohibited in the CR, including cutting of trees, grasses and other vegetation; ; activities detrimental to water conservation, water quality, erosion control, archaeological conservation; hunting or trapping. 

The WLT  in its stewardship of the meadow and its flora and fauna,  may impose  limits on the use of biocides, pesticides and anything that could be detrimental to the pristine meadow. The CR mentions definite exceptions  to the restriction, such as horseback riding, hiking, cross country skiing, snowshoeing—so long as, in the view of the these do not materially alter the landscape nor degrade the environmental qualities of the land.

The CR (See, page 3-4, Part II, 9) allows a narrow exception for some "agricultural activities,”but only  first  (1) with the consent of the Westwood Land Trust, and (2) the presentation to the CR holder —the Land Trust—of a conservation management plan which “may without limitation, limit the permissible time, extent and methods to be utilized” and must be shown to and accepted by the Land Trust before it decides whether to approve any agricultural activity

January 10, 2024   5  members of the then 7-member Town of Westwood Conservation Commission voted unanimously to approve an agricultural use exception to the CR. Two members recused themselves from the vote, as they were members of the Westwood Land Trust. 
Note:  The Westwood Conservation Commission may not override the CR by this vote because under the CR it lacks the legal power to do so. Con Com members Debra Odeh, Todd Sullivan, Michael Walsh, Vesna Maneva and Elias Fares voted to approve a “farming use “ of the Meadow. Two Con Com members, Grace Heller and Stephen Harte, recused themselves and left the meeting room, as they were members of the Westwood Land Trust. Also present at that meeting were members of the Bean family, who own a small farm  near 665 Clapboardtree Street. See, https://www.townhall.westwood.ma.us/home/showpublisheddocument/31011/638463740869600000

In 2023, The Westwood Land Trust hired a consultant to study the ecosystem
in the Meadow and to catalogue what negative  impacts converting of the Meadow to farming use would have on the Meadow,  including its animals, birds, insects, and soil biome.  At its meeting on December 20, 2023, Select Board had an opportunity to hear from and ask questions of Mark Cooperman, M.S., principal at Eco-Terra Consulting.  a consultant hired by the Westwood Land Trust to prepare a full review of the ecosystem of the Meadow, approximately 9.2 acres, and recommend a management program for the Meadow  The Select Board's audiovisually recorded conversation with Cooperman about the various components of the meadow  observed in late fall 2023 can be seen and heard at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kks2CLU66gM   Time stamp  for Cooperman's preliminary findings at 30:29 - 44:22 minutes, and again at 1:01:55 minutes.

Cooperman explained that his findings to date at that time were preliminary, a "snapshot" of the Meadow, and surrounding streams.  He opined that a full report would require assessing the Meadow through all four seasons, not only in October and November.  The Select Board asked what it would take to restore the meadow if it were to be used for some period of years for farming; Cooperman's  answer was that restoration would be very expensive, from $20,000 to $50,000 per acre just to control invasives and purchase seed  and plugs of shrubs to reseed  and replant the area. What would  follow would be managing the land for the first 3-5 years to remove invasives resulting from activities that had disturbed the soil. According to Cooperman, this would merely start the process of remediation; it would take decades of time and additional land management  to bring the meadow back to its current state.  

The Land Trust has not shared the consultant’s report with the Town, stating in its Answer filed in this lawsuit, that the final report was prepared in anticipation of litigation and is therefore privileged.  

Exchange of letters between Town Counsel and Land Trust Attorney, 2024

March 5, 2024  Counsel for the Town of Westwood gave the Land Trust formal notice by letter of the Town’s intent to issue a Request for Proposals to allow farming use of the Meadow.

April 3, 2024   Counsel for the Westwood Land Trust responded  in a letter that agricultural uses of the Meadow may be undertaken only with the consent of the Land Trust and that the Trust  was denying the Town’s request.  These letters are included in the Town’s  Complaint in the lawsuit.

There were some discussions in early 2024 about reaching a resolution, but these did not result in a meeting of the minds. The Town proposed mediation but the Land Trust refused, finding the CR language clear and unequivocal.

The Litigation ( Lawsuit in Norfolk Superior Court )

This litigation is not a lawsuit for money, but rather a case in equity known as a declaratory judgment action—if it eventually goes to trial, it will be before a judge, not a jury. Both sides ask the Court to issue equitable remedies --injunctions and a clarification of the CR and relevant state laws--but  not money (except for attorneys’ fees requested by each side).The CR specifically  includes  language providing for an award of attorneys fees incurred by the Land Trust in the enforcement of the CR.

In  its Complaint dated 7/25/2025 and  electronically filed in Norfolk Superior Court that same day, the Town via the Select Board asked the Court to declare that in refusing the Town’s request to issue an RFP for farming use of the Meadow and contemplate allowing farming use, the Land Trust has exercised rights under the Conservation Restriction on farming and related activities, in excess of rights to which the Land Trust may be entitled.

The Town also requested a declaratory judgment from the Court determining that the CR allows a broad category of agricultural uses of the Meadow, including the use of fertilizers, herbicides, clearing, plowing, planting and other farming activities, as well as the construction and use of a roadside stand, and that the Land Trust cannot “unreasonably” deny permission. (page 11, Town’s Complaint)

The Town requested a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the Land Trust from denying the Town’s request for farming use of the land.

The Land Trust’s position

In its Amended Answer and Counterclaim filed with the Norfolk Superior Court on October 25, 2025, the Land Trust states that agricultural uses of the restricted land can be undertaken only with the consent of the Trust.

The Land Trust further argues that in addition to requiring notice from the Town of contemplated farming use of the land, the CR requires that the Land Trust be given a description of “the nature, scope, design, location, timetable and any other material aspect of the proposed [farming] activity “ in detail, so that the Trust can make an informed decision as to whether farming use is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Restriction. The Land Trust states that the Town has not satisfied the CR’s requirements, rather, it has given only a hypothetical description of what a hypothetical party would do on the land.

The Land Trust does not consider the agricultural use and conservation plan included in the Town's Complaint and written by the owner of the Bean Farm (not a party to this litigation)  to be specific enough,  asserting that the plan does not show that conservation interests protected by the CR would not be impaired or damaged by farming. To the contrary, argues the Land Trust, the proposed farming use of the land would “materially impair the purpose of the CR and other significant conservation interests.” Those interests are spelled out in detail in the CR.

The Land Trust states that if farming were to occur on the Meadow, there first must be a conservation plan presented by the Town stating how, when farming use ended, restoration of the Meadow would be done. No such plan us been presented to the Land Trust: no plan for how that would happen, how long that would take, or how much it would cost.to restore the land.

The Land Trust argues that it did not consent to the Town’s request to allow farming on the land because that would destroy the existing natural viewscape and replace it with a commercial farming operation, destroy the mature meadow, threaten the health of a nearby stream and the meadow’s wetlands, introduce herbicides and pesticides, uproot natural plantings, and invite invasive species, destroying the habitat for the meadow’s plant and animal species, and imposing substantial cost and time to restore the meadow once faming use ends. (page 15, town’s Amended Answer and Counterclaim)

The Land Trust asserts that it has no knowledge of the Town’s obtaining any professional advice that the proposed farming use would not lead to the  destructive consequences the Trust describes in its Answer to the Complaint.

The Land Trust believes converting the Meadow into farmland would mean a
setback for the very conservation interests that the CR was intended to protect, inviting invasive and non-native species, disrupting existing habitat and threatening wetlands on other parts of the Meadow.

The Land Trust cites the  Massachusetts State Constitution, Article 97,  which requires that when a municipality owning land with conservation restrictions wishes to change the use of land because the specific purpose for these restrictions is considered no longer necessary, there must be a two-thirds vote by the Massachusetts legislature to allow the transfer of the land to town management and lifting of the restriction. See, https://farmlandinfo.org/law/article-97-constitution-of-the-commonwealt…

The Land Trust asks for a declaratory judgment that the Town’s letter of March 5, 2024 does not trigger an obligation of the Land Trust to consent to farming use of the land and  that the Land Trust did not unreasonably withhold consent for farming use of the Meadow.

The Land Trust  also requests attorney fees and costs (as explicitly provided in the language of the CR) incurred in the defense of the Town's lawsuit. See, Conservation Restriction, page 5, Section  IV B.  This means that if the Land Trust prevails in this case, the Town of Westwood must pay all attorneys  fees and costs incurred by the Land Trust in the defense of the Town of Westwood’s claim.

The Town of Westwood is represented by the law firm of Mead, Talerman & Costa, Millis, MA

The Westwood Land Trust is represented by the law firm of Nutter, McClennen & Fish, Boston, MA

Lynne Viti  
Westwood resident since 1991, J.D. Boston College, 1984
November 11, 2025

Updated  most recently on January 25, 2026

Contact Lynne Viti
Please create an account or log in to contact
Lynne Viti
5
I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive