Want to Know More About the Lawsuit, Town of Westwood v. Westwood Land Trust? Summary and Updates

Weekly updates will be posted.

My purpose is to provide an objective summary of facts and arguments in this matter from April 30, 1999 through October 2, 2025. The litigation is ongoing. 

Updates:

08:53 AM, January 9

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

10:24 AM, December 17

At a remote hearing on December 3, 2025, trial judge Connolly heard from counsel for both parties on a motion to dismiss  on the pleadings (the Town’s Complaint and Answer to the Land Trust’s Countercomplaint and the Land Trust’s Answer to the Town’s Complaint. The judge took the matter under advisement, and as of this morning no decision has been released. Source:

• Court docket inCase No. 2582CV00808 Town of Westwood by and through its Select Board et al.vs. Westwood Land Trust.  Shows all documents filed to date    https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/searchresults.page?x=q-n8lD5hj1u12Yx-JHRpkz1o3uqirozMPf3ZhJhOHzcqTuyolMn5Tg7GUjqkjZAgnTX-CMTpun*kF2-ERk1bFw. 
  
• www.townhall.westwood.ma.us/home/showpublisheddocument/35824/6389508318549300000. (Shows Town of Westwood’s Complaint and other pleadings only)

jSource: Town of Westwood v. Westwood Land Trust, Inc., Norfolk Superior Court Civil Action No.25 82CV00808. All statements or facts in this summary appear in the pleadings, which can be downloaded at no cost from the Mass. Courts website, here. The Town  of Westwood’s  Complaint and exhibits only, not the Land Trusts Answer and Counterclaim in this case,   are also available on the Town of Westwood website, here.

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 28 acres to the Westwood Land Trust. That parcel was subdivided 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, known as part of  Prout Farm. 

May 24, 2000    McFarland conveyed Lot B to the Westwood Preservation Society (WPS), a Massachusetts not-for-profit corporation.

May 24, 2000     The WPS gifted Lot B to the Town of Westwood. Lot B/Clapboardtree Meadow continues to be subject to the CR, which the Westwood Land Trust vet sees because it holds the CR.

The Conservation Restriction, reprinted in full as an Exhibit to the Town of Westwood's Complaint, is a binding agreement that sticks with the land no matter who owns it, as it passes from party to party, and the CR exists 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, including cutting of trees, grasses and other vegetation; ; activities detrimental to water conservation, water quality, erosion control, archaeological conservation; hunting or trapping; and limited recreational use. 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  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 use.

January 10, 2024 five 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 themnsleveds from the vite, asd 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 power to do so.) Con Com membersDebra 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 Clapboartree Street. See, https://www.townhall.westwood.ma.us/home/showpublisheddocument/31011/638463740869600000

The Westwood Land Trust hired a consultant to study the ecosystem
in the Meadow and to catalogue what negative  impacts the converting of the Meadow to farming use would have on the Meadow., including its animals,birds, insects, and soil biome. The Land Trust has not shared the consultant’s report with the Town, stating in its Answer filed in this court case, that this report was prepared in anticipation of litigation. At some point before the Complaint was filed, the Select Board heard the WLT’s consultant’s presentation and had an opportunity to question the consultant about what that consultant viewed as specific detrimental impacts of converting the meadow to agricultural use of the type contemplated by the Select Board.

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 Trust and that then trust  was denying the Town’s request.

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 speicualoy includes language providing for an award of attorneys fees incurred by the land Trust in the enforcement of the CR.

In its Complaint filed in Norfolk Superior Court, the Town via the Select Board asks 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 requests a declaratory judgment from the Court 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 requests 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 agricultural 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,
finding 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 has been no conservation plan presented for how, when farming use ended, restoration of the Meadow would be done, no plan for how that would happen, how long that would take, or how much it would cost.

The Land Trust argues 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 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,  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 from the Court 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 9, 2026