I started a Change.Org petition to gauge and document the Westwood,
MA town residents’ support for:
the use of a portion of the conservation land next to the Bean Farm
for farming, and the Westwood Select Board’s decision to take legal
action regarding the interpretation of the Conservation Restriction
placed on that property.
First, I want to be
clear that I strongly support the Westwood Select Board’s course of
action; the ideas presented in this document are based on my opinion
of the situation. I believe that anyone driving around Westwood
would assume that there is enormous support for the Bean Farm, based
on the numerous signs displayed in support of the farm. Contrast
that with the few signs that say “Conservation not Litigation”.
However, the Land
Trust and supporters of the “Conservation not Litigation”
side of the argument have taken out full page ads and written
extensive letters in the local papers purporting to state the “facts”
of the situation. In my observation, often these statements often
leave out the fact that the Conservation Restriction allows
agriculture (with the Land Trust’s permission). They also leave
out or minimize the fact that the meadow will still exist and will be
fronted on Clapboardtree Street as it is now. The Bean Farm will use
land that is closer to the tree line, if they are allowed to do so.
Mr. and Mrs
McFarland’s (the donors of the subject property) letter of October
10, 2025, alleges that “We never intended or expected that
Clapboardtree Meadow would be used for commercial farming operations
by the Bean family, or anyone else. If we had so intended, we could
have explicitly addressed that in the Conservation Restriction or
other documents prepared at that time”. This seems to me to be
illogical:
1) Did they not
anticipate that the Beans may at some point in the future want to
farm some portion of that property?
2) Why did the
Conservation Restriction allow Agricultural use if they did not want
to allow farming? What Agricultural use was anticipated?
3) If they did not
want “commercial farming” of the protected land, why was that not
explicitly stated in the Conservation
Restriction?
The Land Trust and
their supporters refer to the subject property as the Clapboardtree
Meadow in an apparent attempt to support their view of the situation.
The historical use of the property is farming as is detailed in John
J. Cronin Jr’s Nov 7, 2025 letter to the Westwood Minute.
The Land Trust and
the supporters refer to the Bean Farm as a Commercial enterprise and
as such something that the Town of Westwood should not be expending
funds to support. Westwood, like many of the surrounding towns, was
originally a collection of family farms. There is a reason that the
Bean Farm is the sole remaining family farm in Westwood; the
underlying land is far more valuable and profitable if it is
developed for residential or other use --just look at the former
Westwood Lodge site and its 50 plus units. Farming is a difficult,
low margin business; whether we recognize it or not, Chris Bean is
doing us all a favor by attempting to continue his family’s
tradition and maintaining its use as a farm.
Federal, State and
local governments subsidize and support many businesses where it is
deemed to be in the best interest of the community. In this case, no
subsidy is being offered or sought. The Land Trust is refusing to
allow farming on the subject property -- although
it appears to be a use that is allowed under the Conservation
Restriction. The Select Board on behalf of Westwood’s residents is
simply attempting to have the issue resolved on a permanent basis. I
believe that the survival of the Bean Farm is in the best interest of
us all, and I support the Westwood Select Board’s decision. The
Land Trust should stop wasting their funds (and the town’s) by
negotiating and coming to an agreement that would allow some portion
of the land to be used for farming. They have chosen not to do so
which has necessitated the ensuing legal action undertaken by the
Westwood Select Board on behalf of the Town.
The Land Trust and
the supporters use the expense of reverting farm land back to a
meadow as a reason to not allow farming on the property. If Chris
Bean is successful in his farming business -- the land will hopefully
be farmed far into the future and this will not be an issue.
Moreover, the procedure and cost to return the land to being a meadow
can be addressed in any agreement that is written to allow the land
to be used for farming.
The Land Trust and
the supporters complain about Westwood’s funds being used in
furtherance of this legal dispute; their posters say “Conservation
not Litigation”. As was made clear, the Land Trust is against
farming a portion of this land based on the donors’ opposition as
detailed in their October 10th letter to the Select Board.
As the donors of the land and many others, the McFarland’s opinion
should certainly be taken into consideration. However, I don’t
think that it can be controlling, as this may violate the validity of
any tax deductions that may
have been taken when the land was donated to a charity.
I do think the
slogan itself belies an underlying hypocrisy in that the legal
dispute appears to have arisen based on the donors’ opposition to
the land being used for farming. On Gay street, a builder purchased
a large piece of land and submitted plans to renovate the existing
house and build another house on the property. The plans were
approved by Westwood’s building department and the Conservation
Board. In 2023, the donors --
acting as Trustees of
the Gay Street/Sandy
Valley Realty Trust –
filed a lawsuit against the builder, the Town of Westwood and its
Conservation Board members for approving the plan (see Norfolk Count
Docket #2382-CV 00154 and 00355). The suit caused Westwood to expend
funds to fend off the lawsuit --
not to mention the stress caused to the volunteer Conservation Board
members having been individually
named in the lawsuit. Apparently litigation is acceptable when one is
the plaintiff but not when one is the defendant in a lawsuit.
Lastly,
whether you agree with the Select Board’s decisions and
actions or not, I think there is no question that they are trying to
do what they believe to be in Westwood’s best interest. We should
all keep in mind that they are essentially volunteers in an unpaid
position that requires a tremendous amount of time and effort. It is
certaintly acceptable to disagree with their decisions, but it should
be done in a respectful manner.
As I said above, I
started a petition is to gauge and document the Westwood town
residents’ support for the use of a portion of the conservation
land next to the Bean Farm for farming, and the Select Board’s
decision to take legal action regarding the interpretation of the
Conservation Restriction
placed on that property.
If you agree that
the Land Trust should allow farming on the subject property (which is
owned by the Town of Westwood and it’s residents -- not the Land
Trust), then
please lease sign this petition.
Below is a link to the petition:”
Can you please confirm that only Westwood residents may sign your petition? That seems important to its stated purpose.
Hi Erin, Change.org does not allow me to restrict anyone from signing the petition. If this were a vote or something similar to your petition calling for Westwood Government to take some action we would need to weed out the signers that are not from Westwood. At points as the word spread they came in fast and furious, my wife and I watched the names as they scrolled and recognized many of them. However I am sure that there are a number of people outside of Westwood that came across the petition and signed it.
Also, respectfully, some issues with your letter:
By all accounts, the all-volunteer, independent Land Trust has taken and held the same position with respect to the Meadow for nine years. The lawsuit was filed in July 2025. The Donor letter was written in October 2025. Your suggestion that the Land Trust is following the Donor’s direction is wrong.
As an aside, our Select Board did not publicly post the lawsuit on the town website until October. Why not?
Residents should understand that the Conservation Commission is a town body whose members are hand picked by, and may be removed by, the Select Board at any time for any reason. This is written in the town Bylaws. They are not an independent deliberative body.
A range of activities could be considered “agricultural uses.” I imagine it makes a big difference to the neighbors and to the condition of the land whether the “agricultural use” involves raising bees for honey versus raising cattle for slaughter.
Finally, you claim that the Bean farm is not receiving a taxpayer subsidy. Many residents would disagree. Our Select Board is using town funds to advance the cause of the farm without any transparent public process or advancing any valid public interest justification. They refuse to answer resident questions and provide an explanation of how exactly these decisions are in the best interests of all Westwood residents. That is what many of us take issue with.
Many residents don’t think taxpayer funds should be used to benefit any private party at the expense of the rest of us. This is why we have petitioned for a Special Town Meeting, where we hope Westwood residents - and only Westwood residents - can express their views to our Select Board.
I hope that Westwood residents will take the time to learn the facts of this dispute, and the growing public opposition to the actions taken by the Select Board, to reach an educated conclusion based on these facts and not on a concentrated number of yard signs displayed on a handful of high-traffic properties.
Thanks
for taking the time to read the post and reply. I think your posts
and this one have helped initiate a healthy discussion on both sides
of the issue.
I
disagree with a number of your statements:
“The
lawsuit was filed in July 2025. The Donor letter was written in
October 2025. Your suggestion that the Land Trust is following
the Donor’s direction is wrong.”
1.)
The fact that the Donor’s letter was filed months after the
lawsuit does not show that the Land Trust is following the Donor’s
direction. Only the Land Trust members and the donors know whether
they are acting based on the Donor’s direction or not.
2.)
I am not clear why it is important that people understand that the
Conservation Board members are appointed by the Select Board.
3.)
Although I agree that a number of activities can be considered
agricultural uses, in my opinion it seems clear that the Conservation
Restriction allows farming;
As
recorded in the Norfolk Registry of Deeds, Book 14153 -- specifically
pages 231 and 232 -- signed by the Donor.
See excerpt inserted
below:
9)
Subject to the 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 farmstand or similar
structures.
I
think it would help all of us to understand what the Donor intended
if he would explain why this language was included instead of a
simple statement that farming is not allowed. The language seems to
anticipate that a farm may want to use the land for a farm stand and
to clear, plow and plant on it.
4)
You suggest that the Bean Farm is receiving a “subsidy” in the
form of the Select Board using town funds to advance their cause.
However, as many have suggested, the Bean Farm does not have the
right to farm this property. If the Select Board prevails and
decides to lease a portion of this property for farming, a public
bidding process will be required. Personally, I hope that the Select
Board wins the lawsuit and the Beans win the public bid, but this is
certainly not guaranteed.
5)
You suggest that the neighbors would prefer raising bees for honey
versus raising cattle for slaughter. I don’t doubt this and have
no idea what plans the Beans have for the land if they win the public
bid, but I am sure that any lease agreement drawn allowing use of the
subject property can restrict raising cattle for slaughter if that is
the concern.
I
think ideally the Land Trust and the Select Board would work out some
kind of compromise and save both sides the time and expense of
litigation. Also, ideally, this whole process would have occurred in
a more public forum well before it got to this point. Unfortunately
we seem to have passed that point.
I
agree that we should have a public forum where everyone can express
their opinions, perhaps your petition will lead to an appropriate
venue.
Mr. Moore,
Whether the logic in your disquisition is sound or specious, the reality is that now that the Town of Westwood has sued the Westwood Land Trust in Norfolk Superior Court, it is the Court that will interpret the language of the Conservation Restriction—not the public. Your reading that the language in the CR absolutely means that agricultural activity must be permitted, is not one that parses the surrounding language in the document, which states conditions under which any agricultural activity at all may take place on the property at 665 Clapboardtree Street.
Your enthusiasm in this expansive post and your raising public awareness in Westwood about this controversy is admirable. But when you argued what the CR language age means. you may well be wasting your breath, because the issue of what the CR means is now in the hands of the Norfolk Superior Court. To state the obvious, it’s not up to the residents of Westwood to be the legal arbiters of this controversy; it’s up to the judge assigned to the case.
What is worth discussing is the mystery of why elected officials kept the controversy on the down low until the lawsuit was filed on October 25, 2025.That is why there’s been growing support for the Special Town Meeting for voters to raise questions and get answers from our elected officials and their actions in this matter.
If you pay for another companies legal fees to rent land at a below market rate and pay real estate taxes at a below market rate the tax payers are subsidizing that company.
Sunny, with a high of 33 and low of 17 degrees. Sunny during the morning, overcast for the afternoon and evening, clear overnight.
The Select Board will never admit they were wrong, and thus, will press forward. And based on Town Council's very bad advice.
But what are friends for?
Circle the wagons...
Curious to learn if WEAC (or WWLT for that matter) compared / contrasted the environmental impacts of farming part of Clapboardtree Meadow against the environmental impacts of housing built on Bean Farm land when the farm ceases operations?
