Westwood MA
Public Notices and Press Releases
Saturday January 17 2026 1:15pm

A Path Forward for Conservation and Farming in Westwood.

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

Westwood is facing a false choice.

We are being asked to believe that we must either protect conserved land or allow our town’s last working farm to survive. That framing is not only inaccurate—it undermines the very principles conservation is meant to uphold.

I support the mission of the Westwood Land Trust.
I also support the future of the Bean Family Farm.

These positions are not in conflict.

The land at issue is not untouched wilderness. It is a historic meadow shaped by generations of agricultural use—haying, grazing, and farming that created the open landscape we value today.

Agriculture is not a new intrusion here. It is the origin story.

Well-managed farming has long been recognized as a conservation tool because it keeps land open and undeveloped, maintains soil health, prevents invasive species, supports pollinators, and preserves historic landscapes. A working farm is not the opposite of conservation; it is one of its oldest expressions.

The Conservation Restriction governing this land explicitly allows agricultural use, subject to approval. That provision was not accidental. It reflects an understanding that conservation does not require land to be frozen in time, but stewarded responsibly.

The Land Trust has said it cannot allow any use that “impairs the purpose of the Conservation Restriction.” That principle is sound. The disagreement lies in how impairment is defined.

Interpreting any meaningful agricultural use as impairment elevates one philosophy of conservation—passive preservation—above others that are widely accepted, legally recognized, and historically grounded. Stewardship is not about eliminating human use. It is about managing land for long-term public benefit.

What Chris Bean is proposing is not industrial agriculture. It is small-scale, diversified, soil-based farming.  This is the very kind that conservation professionals across Massachusetts increasingly recognize as compatible with protected land.

Modern regenerative farming practices can improve soil structure and carbon sequestration, support pollinators through crop diversity, control invasive species through active management, and preserve open meadow more reliably than passive maintenance alone.

Crucially, these practices are reversible. If farming ever ceased, the land could be restored. If the farm itself disappears, however, a 14-generation legacy and an irreplaceable community asset will not return.

This is not a choice between conservation and farming. It is a question of whether we recognize that active stewardship can sometimes protect land more effectively than leaving it unmanaged.

The Bean Family Farm provides Westwood with local food production, educational opportunities for children and families, and a living connection to the town’s agricultural history. It offers a sense of place that no passive open space alone can replicate.

This is Westwood’s last working farm. Losing it would mean losing more than crops. It would mean losing identity, continuity, and lived stewardship. Land that serves people meaningfully is land people are committed to protecting.

The Land Trust argues that farming would impair the purpose of the Conservation Restriction by altering the meadow’s ecology.

But conservation law does not require land to remain untouched. It requires that protected values not be materially undermined. A carefully governed agricultural use, with defined acreage, buffer zones, monitoring, and restoration requirements does not impair conservation. It fulfills it.

To reject this outright is not neutrality. It is a choice to favor abandonment over stewardship, rigidity over resilience, and theory over lived practice.

This does not need to be a zero-sum outcome.

Westwood can protect the land, honor the Conservation Restriction, support ecological health, and allow its last working farm to survive. 

That balance is not a compromise of conservation. It is its evolution.

If conservation cannot coexist with the people and practices that shaped the land in the first place, then we are not preserving living landscapes; we are managing decline.

Westwood can do better. And I believe we should.

— Kelly Fredrickson

8 4
I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive

Replies

1-18-2026 6:06pm

I agree that this is a false choice, but i see the false choice as being between allowing the farm to use the conservation land and losing the farm to development. I support the farm’s success but I don’t believe that this specific land is the only option for them to survive, it is just the most convenient. And I don’t agree that taxpayers should be footing the bill for the farm’s convenience.

Additionally, I agree the sustainable farming methods can preserve soil health but that is not the only conservation concern here. Much of Westwood was farmland and open space at one point, before development. Now the dwindling open space also offers a habitat for the wildlife that aren’t safe to coexist in suburban backyards. Regardless of whether the farm is used for crops or livestock, the electric fences will be extended and the coyotes, deer, foxes, etc will be forced out of more acreage. Additionally, the livestock farming that the Bean Farm is currently doing is not neutral or reversible with respect to the health of the soil and water supply.

3
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
1-20-2026 11:55am

Thank you for your thoughts and I wish there was a way for everyone to communicate this topic in person so that the tone and tenor of our voices wouldn't be confused as argumentative or adversarial.  

I am confused how this lease deal is being considered a a subsidy by the town.  There is currently no revenue to the town being produced by this land.  There is no other party that can out bid the Bean family by simple logistics; the materials, tools, strucutres, machinery, man power, e.t.c are immediately adjacent.  Whatever the Town and Beans work out in terms of a deal should be favorable.  

My in-laws happen to be farmers and what Mr. Bean is saying comports with what I see an observer of the agricultural industry.  There is enormous economic pressure on smaller-scale farmers to increase in size or sell.  If Chris Bean is not allowed to farm Prout Farm then I would expect the Beans to sell their land.  Farms don't expect huge profits but they do expect to be profitable.  What other less convenient option exists?  A Bed and Breakfast?  Making artisanal cheese?  I am genuinely curious because the answer doesn't seem obvious to me.  

Also, just reading the agricultural plan, the Beans will grow fruits and vegetables on the town land, there's no mention of electric fences.  Those are used to keep cows in, not protect crops.  Also, unless those fences are of a certain height and grid pattern, they do not restrict the movement of deer, foxes or coyotes.  The latter can easily burrow below and deer can jump most fences.  Again, I say this as some one who spends their Summer and Winter vacations on a farm.  The deer are erveywhere if you're not paying attention while driving you can hit one.

I am also puzzled by the idea that the current cattle farming done by the Beans is harmful to the health of the soil and water supply. The cows are grazing on grass mostly and are fed hay in the Winter months,  They are not overcrowded by any means.  The cows eat grass and their byproduct provides nutrients for the soil, this is not too dissimilar from what wild ruminant animals do in nature.  We should be more concerned about what the average Westwood resident buys from Home Depot to fertilize their lawns.

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
1-20-2026 1:26pm

The town is not subsidizing the farm strictly speaking, but they are funding the lawsuit over the use of the land. Based on typical agricultural lease rates, the cost of the litigation is not likely to be recouped by the town.

As for fencing, like I said, I can’t imagine that wildlife would have access to the land whether it is used for crops or livestock. That is a conservation concern. This is not a backyard garden that we are talking about.

I do agree with you that in person conversations would be beneficial. The select board chose to initiate litigation against the Land Trust without any community discussion. That is why the recent petition for a special town meeting was initiated, to encourage transparency and community input. I believe that the select board has the opportunity to turn down the temperature in this situation and have so far declined to do so, which is disappointing.

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
1-22-2026 10:46pm

Kelly Frederickson’s recent opinion piece makes the argument that active agriculture and nature conservation are not mutually exclusive, and that a “compromise” is possible with respect to the land at 665 Clapboardtree Street. This is the same argument the Bean Farm has been making.

Ms. Frederickson has not shared credentials which would make her more qualified to make this determination than the Westwood Land Trust, to whom stewardship of the Meadow has been entrusted pursuant to the Conservation Restriction (CR). The Land Trust stewards 14 different parcels of conservation land in Westwood. In the case of the Meadow, the Land Trust has evaluated this imagined “compromise" and rejected it as detrimental to conservation of the Meadow, as is its right and duty under the CR.

Ms. Frederickson’s text contains factual errors, unsupported assertions, exaggerations, undefined terms and inaccurate statements. Here are some:

“Agriculture is not a new intrusion here. It is the origin story.”

This is hyperbole. The real origin story of Westwood was as a hunting and foraging area for the Wampanoag and Massachusett peoples. We all know farming by colonists came much later.

“The Conservation Restriction governing this land explicitly allows agricultural use, subject to approval. “

This takes the CR’s phrase “agricultural activities” out of context, when it must be read with the modifying phrases which precede it—only if such use does not materially impair the purpose of the CR or other significant conservation interests, subject to with the prior approval of the Land Trust, and pursuant to a conservation management plan.

“…these practices [ farming] are reversible. If farming ever ceased, the land could be restored.”

Could be, might be, hopefully would be—but restored at a very high cost, $20,000 to $50,000 per acre (as of 2023 pricing), as reported by ecosystem expert and consultant Mark Cooperman when he appeared at the Select Board’s December 20, 2023 meeting. This expense would be to reseed and replant for the first five years, then it would require decades to pass before the Meadow returned to its current state. See, Select Board Meeting , December 20, 2023, audio visual recording at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kks2CLU66gM time stamp for Cooperman's preliminary findings after walking the site in late fall 2023 30:29 - 44:22 minutes, and again at 1:01:55

Would Westwood taxpayers be happy to foot the bill for this remediation? Would the farmer, if he gave up farming the land in question, pay the tab?

“If the farm itself disappears, however, a 14-generation legacy and an irreplaceable community asset will not return.”

Hyperbole: 14 generations would take us back to 1606.The Puritans didn’t even reach the New World until 1620. Farming in Westwood came much later. This claim also rests on a false premise, that the farm will absolutely, surely, “disappear.” It may have to stay much as it is now, but that is hardly “disappearance.”

“Modern regenerative farming practices can improve soil structure and carbon sequestration, support pollinators through crop diversity, control invasive species through active management, and preserve open meadow more reliably than passive maintenance alone.”

Where is the support for this claim? Many ecological experts, including ecologist Mark Cooperman, would disagree. And what is meant, exactly, by “passive maintenance”?

“It is a question of whether we recognize that active stewardship can sometimes protect land more effectively than leaving it unmanaged.”

This statement is based on a false assumption, that the Clapboardtree Meadow is completely “unmanaged.” And just how is “active stewardship” defined here? Mechanical plowing, digging up the soil layer that has taken 27 years to build up in this early succession meadow are not stewardship, in the view of many.

“It is a choice to favor abandonment over stewardship.” This is a mischaracterization of the Land Trust’s approach to stewarding the Meadow. Allowing the Meadow to continue to mature without interference is not “abandonment,” typically defined as intentionally giving up possession or a known right to property. On the contrary, the Land Trust is asserting its rights under the Conservation Restriction easement to steward the Meadow as the CR directs it requires.

“Westwood can protect the land, honor the Conservation Restriction, support ecological health, and allow its last working farm to survive.”

To honor the CR is to let the Land Trust exercise its rights under the agreement. The Land Trust is doing all it can –under the terms of the CR—to protect the Meadow as it was in 1999 when the donor, Duncan McFarland, bought the land. The Land Trust is Doing Its Job. And the CR is working precisely as intended when the Town accepted it 26 years ago—that is, to preserve undeveloped open space for the benefit of current and future generations of Westwood residents, and to keep this space out of the hands of those who would develop or degrade it for their own private use and benefit.

“If conservation cannot coexist with the people and practices that shaped the land in the first place, then we are not preserving living landscapes; we are managing decline.”

The Town of Westwood freely accepted the CR 26 years ago, before the Town gladly and without paying a dime, received title to the 29 acres—meadow, wetlands and woods. Select Board members Dunn, Antonellis and Walsh on behalf of the Town, signed that acceptance agreement and in doing so, acknowledged that our town (or its successors, should it ever sell the land) was and is legally bound to observe the CR. Not only for 26 years, but in perpetuity.

If the Town reneges on its legal agreement which recited acceptance of the CR’s terms, then we are not honoring our legal commitment.

We are not being honest.

We are going back on the deal we made.

That  is not “preserving living landscapes”; that is breaking a legal promise.

Westwood can do better. And I believe we should.

Lynne Viti

3
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive