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:
I recently became aware, thanks to yard signs popping up around town, of a controversy that has been brewing between the Town of Westwood (the “Town”) and the Westwood Land Trust (“WLT”) with respect to converting roughly 9 acres of undeveloped land known as the Clapboardtree Meadow (the “Meadow”) to commercial agricultural use.
I am an attorney and 20 year Westwood resident. I feel compelled to write this letter because I intensely dislike the acrimonious turn this dispute has taken and the division it is sowing in Westwood.
I also agree with another writer who said that this matter has not received the public scrutiny it deserves, because I believe it raises larger questions about how our elected officials are making important decisions on our behalf.
I am very much an outside observer of town politics, and have no personal stake in the outcome of this dispute. My knowledge of the relevant facts comes from reading publicly available documents and I include here only enough background information to make my point.
If I am factually mistaken, I hope that someone will correct me.
As I understand it, about 25 years ago private donors (“Donors”) purchased a large tract of land on Clapboardtree Street in order to protect it from planned development and preserve it as open, natural space. Around the same time, the Donors granted a Conservation Restriction (“CR”) over the property, protecting it from development, forever, in favor of the WLT. Shortly thereafter, a portion of this property (the “Meadow”) was conveyed to the Town.
The WLT is a nonprofit charitable organization which was formed in 1999 by a group of residents for the sole purpose of protecting open space and natural environments in Westwood. The WLT raises funds to buy development rights from landowners who wish to permanently preserve their property in an underdeveloped state, and also receives and enforces conservation restrictions on Westwood properties. The WLT is now and has always been run entirely by unpaid volunteers.
The CR in this case expressly prohibits many activities on the Meadow in order to preserve its undeveloped, natural state. It includes limited exceptions, including one for agricultural use, but only in specific circumstances which do not “materially alter the landscape nor degrade the environmental qualities" of the Meadow, and, even then, only with the consent of the WLT.
Since 2016, a private, for-profit farm which abuts the Meadow has sought to lease it from the Town for the purpose of expanding its commercial agricultural operations. Because of the CR, the Town cannot enter into such a lease without the permission of the WLT.
According to the farm, obtaining this permission “has required exhaustive dialogue and countless requests, but each time we have been turned down;” “[t]he Westwood Land Trust has opposed our efforts at every turn. Over the course of nine years. . .we have sought compromise and collaboration, only to be met with obstruction and defiance” and “persistent obstinacy.” In other words, the WLT has consistently said no.
The farm, apparently with the support of the Select Board, has refused to accept no for an answer. Instead, over the last nine years, “through countless calls, letters, and meetings,” it has sought to re-open the matter with the WLT in an effort to obtain a different result.
In 2024, the Select Board formally requested the WLT’s permission to lease the Meadow for private, for-profit agricultural use. The WLT hired an independent consultant to study the ecosystem of the Meadow and to identify the impacts that converting the Meadow to farming use would have on the Meadow. The WLT - once again - said no.
In my view, that should have been the end of the discussion. But it was not.
The Select Board, whose current members are Robert Gotti (Chair), Marianne Leblanc Cummings, and Joe Privitera, chose not only to prolong this dispute, but to escalate it.
In July, 2025, under Chairman Gotti’s leadership, the Select Board filed a lawsuit against the WLT, essentially seeking to reject and overrule the findings and decisions of the WLT and obtain a ruling which will allow leasing of the Meadow for commercial agricultural use.
In August, 2025, the Donors, aware of the escalating conflict, made an offer to re-purchase the Land from the Town (subject to the CR) at its current fair market value. In the words of the Donors: “[r]ather than exploring the possibility of such a sale, and gauging the community’s interest in doing so, this Board unilaterally . . . ended any discussions before they truly began.”
At the same time, the Donors also wrote: “[w]e implore the Town’s leadership to do the right thing and stop using taxpayer dollars to undermine the Conservation Restriction on Clapboardtree Meadows against our wishes and intent, and respect the wisdom and judgment of the WLT in how best to protect the land.”
Still, Chairman Gotti and his colleagues continued to press forward with their lawsuit against the WLT.
I believe the farm when it says that it needs additional land in order be be profitable. I value history and I support small, local businesses. However, I can also understand that it may not be feasible to run a profitable commercial farm in a suburb 12 miles from Boston, where real estate is very expensive.
I generally don’t object to a private business working with local government to advance its own best interests. However, I believe this has gone way too far.
In my view, the WLT’s decision is final and should have been accepted as such a long time ago. The farm is obviously disappointed by the decision and frustrated by its inability to change it.
However, I see no evidence or even suggestion that the WLT is acting in anything other than good faith. To me, the position of the WLT - unchanged over the last nine years - seems entirely consistent with its charitable, nonprofit mission and with the stated purpose of the CR.
Further, to me, the restrictions of the CR seem clear enough, and even if the proposed commercial agricultural use may be permitted, it does not follow that it must be permitted.
In addition, any possible ambiguity regarding the intent of the CR has been definitively resolved by the Donors themselves, who have stated: “[I]t was never our intent or expectation that Clapboardtree Meadow would be used for a commercial farm operation. It is our firmly held belief that such use would destroy the natural meadow habitat, and degrade the views, which the CR was and is meant to protect.”
In my view, this lawsuit lacks merit and community support, and is fueling unwelcome conflict among neighbors. None of this is good for Westwood.
But my larger point is that the Select Board, under Chairman Gotti’s leadership, seems to have made, and continues to make, several significant, expensive, and divisive decisions on our behalf behind closed doors and without any meaningful public discussion. This seems to be true even as public awareness grows and yard signs proliferate. Most Westwood residents are not direct stakeholders in the outcome of this controversy but are impacted nevertheless.
Instead of meaningful public dialogue, we are reduced to writing letters such as this one.
If we were to have a public discussion, I would ask the Select Board, for the good of our Westwood community, to immediately drop its lawsuit against the WLT.
I would also very much like to know:
Why does the Town want to convert the Meadow to commercial agricultural use? What are the projected benefits to the Town?
For how long would the Town plan to convert the Meadow for commercial agricultural use?
How much would the Town expect to receive in lease payments?
What are the projected costs of returning the Meadow to its undeveloped state at the end of such a lease?
Why, and on what basis, has the Select Board rejected and opposed the WLT’s findings and decisions over the last nine years?
Why has the Select Board supported the efforts of a for-profit business to pressure the WLT to change its position “countless” times over the last nine years?
Is the Select Board spending public funds to advance private interests?
Why did the Select Board choose to pursue litigation against the WLT without public discussion?
How much has the Town spent so far on legal fees in connection with this matter?
How much does the Town plan to spend to continue pursuing litigation?
What monetary value did the Select Board assign to the Donor’s offer to purchase the Meadow?
Why did the Select Board reject the Donor’s offer without public discussion?
Finally, why does the Select Board continue to meet remotely, pursuant to COVID-era legislation, instead of holding in-person meetings where residents can speak and be heard?
If these questions have been publicly addressed, or if I am missing something, I hope someone will please share.
Erin Sibley
NOTE: The next Select Board meeting will be held via Zoom on Monday December 8th @ 6 pm. It is open to the public. The Zoom link can be found on the Town of Westwood website’s calendar.
To contact the Select Board, call (781) 326-4172 or email bos@townhall.westwood.ma.us.
To learn more www.westwoodlandrust.org or www.beanfamilyfarm.com
WestwoodLandTrust or The Bean Farm (on Facebook)
14° and Clear
