Westwood MA
Public Notices and Press Releases
Thursday January 22 2026 1:54pm

Important Historical Facts Regarding the Clapboardtree Meadow

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

It is troubling to learn that the Town of Westwood is suing the Westwood Land Trust to try to force open the preserved Clapboardtree Meadow for commercial farming. It is incongruous and unfathomable that the Town would spend tens of thousands of dollars on litigation, suing a non-profit that has dedicated itself so generously to the interests of the Town. The Town is disregarding the intent of the donors and the ownership status of the land itself. The only apparent benefit is to assist a single town resident who would like to expand a commercial farming operation under the guise of preserving agriculture in Westwood.

I was a Westwood resident for 25 years. Although I no longer live in Westwood, I am proud that I could help preserve the character of the community while I lived there. I was appointed by the Select Board to co-chair the Organization for the Preservation of the Environment and Nature (OPEN), and we successfully preserved the Lowell Woods. A few years later, several other civic-minded citizens and I had the honor of incorporating the Westwood Land Trust, Inc. Preservation of open space was specifically recognized in the town’s Master Plan. The Land Trust was founded to help carry out that mission, and to date, the Land Trust has protected 220 acres from development.

The Land Trust’s first project was 665 Clapboardtree Street which includes Clapboardtree Meadow. This beautiful parcel of open space was threatened with a large condominium development. Fortunately, the land was saved by the thoughtful and generous actions of Duncan and Ellen McFarland, who purchased the land before construction could start and protected it with a conservation restriction that they gave to the newly-formed Westwood Land Trust. The land itself was eventually donated to the Town, with the intent that it be preserved in its natural state for the public to enjoy. The conservation restriction still resides, and forever will, with the Westwood Land Trust.

In the twenty years that I was on and off the Land Trust’s Board, the Land Trust worked assiduously to preserve land, contributing significantly to the preservation of the character of Westwood that the residents so cherish. That effort was aided by the continuing support of the McFarlands and hundreds of other residents.

Conservation restrictions, also known as conservation easements, are invaluable tools for preserving open space. The restrictions give landowners flexibility (as well as tax benefits) in ownership, sale, or donation. Landowners can guarantee that their land will be preserved, even if it is donated or sold. The conservation restriction itself resides with a third party, typically a land trust or public entity. Conserved land is a benefit intended for the public.

When a land trust holds a conservation restriction, it has a duty not only to honor the intent of the donor, but also to strictly enforce the specific terms of the restriction. Restrictions are carefully vetted to ensure they comply with state and federal law. A land trust does not have the option to waive provisions of a conservation restriction just to please local politicians or neighboring landowners.

As applied to the Clapboardtree Meadow, the intent of the donor was to create a public benefit, namely open space, with a remarkable view over the open field. While a clause could potentially have permitted agricultural uses by the owner of the land, nothing in the conservation restriction permitted commercial uses by a neighbor or other third party. And even as to potential agricultural use by the subsequent owner, under the conservation restriction, the Westwood Land Trust still has the discretion to disapprove of such a project.

The history of subsequent owners goes like this: The McFarlands donated the land to the Westwood Preservation Society. In turn, WPS donated the land to the Town of Westwood. In turn, in 2001, the Town ceded control of the land to the Westwood Conservation Commission.

This final act occurred at the 2001 Town Meeting (Article 33), which was unanimously approved by Town Meeting, and which provided specifically that “said land [is] to be used for conservation and passive recreation.” The silence of Town Meeting on agricultural uses extinguishes the right to farm the land by anybody
unless Town Meeting reverses Article 33 at some future meeting.

Accordingly, the Westwood Land Trust has made the correct choice to disallow commercial farming on Clapboardtree Meadow. This decision is consistent with the intent of the donors (the McFarlands), is consistent with the plain language of the conservation restriction, is consistent with the unanimous Town Meeting declaration, and is an appropriate use of the Land Trust’s discretion.

The action by the Town in suing the Land Trust is particularly concerning since the Select Board does not have the power to negotiate for an alternative use. That power is with the Conservation Commission, but its hands are tied by Article 33. The citizens of Westwood have never approved commercial farming on the land.

While the Town attempts to crush a local non-profit organization through expensive litigation, the Town must know that the cost of litigation would likely never be recovered by renting the property to a farmer; farmland rents for very little money.

If it were farmed, the beautiful vista would be ruined, whether it is by row crops or grazing cattle. The meadow would be destroyed. The soil would likely be degraded with pesticides, fertilizers or animal waste. The public land would no longer be open for the public to explore. Nature would no longer be experienced. It makes no sense at all.

Fortunately, there could be an end to this debate at Special Town Meeting on February 2nd. There are four articles for residents to consider on whether the Town should be waging litigation against the Land Trust. If the voters pass those articles, which would be the right thing to do, that would send a strong message to the Select Board to shut down its oppressive litigation, and the Town will again affirm the conservation value of Clapboardtree Meadow.

Alas, I no longer have a vote on this matter. But I do hope that the citizens of Westwood will stand up and deliver a loud ‘No Thank You’ to the Select Board for this effort to destroy Clapboardtree Meadow.

David White

Saunderstown, RI

Former resident of 870 Gay St, Westwood

Founding President of Westwood Land Trust

4 3
I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive

Replies

1-22-2026 5:26pm

Hi Mr White
Thank you very much for weighing in, I for one respect the opinions of people who live outside of Westwood on this matter.  Thank you for for volunteer efforts for the town, a long time ago I led an Eagle Scout project at Hale so I have at least some appreciation for the importance of protecting Westwood's outdoor space and public service.

What would be extremely helpful to those that currently support the Town's lawsuit against *** is someone pointing out where in the CR it says that it must be the Town that carries out these agricultural activities.  Is it in another clause? If that were the case, then logically speaking, the other permitted uses under III.B would also only be permitted by the Town.  Only Town employees could ride horseback or cross country ski (III.B.1).  If there was a necessary archeological dig (III.B.5), the Town must hire a Town archeologist, they cannot contract with one.  

Section III.B,9 c) also explicitly allows construction of a farmstead, which is very much a commercial operation.  The "destruction of the view" would be the same if the Town builds it or a leasee does.  The purported damage by any applied fertilizers or herbicides (also explicitly permitted under III.B.9 c)) would be just the same if the Town does it or a leasee does it.  By the way, cow dung naturally fertilizers meadows, it does not destroy them.  

Also, you stated "The public land would no longer be open for the public to explore."  However, Section V says "The Conservation Restriction hereby conveyed does not grant the general public or any third party the right to enter upon the Premises."  This section is referred to in Section III.B.1 (the horseback riding and cross country skiing) but not Section III.B.9, so there is some verbiage about "third party access" but not in regards to agricultural activities.  Again, if someone could please point out the language where it says the Town must commence the agricultural activities itself, I will not support the lawsuit.

The WLT must enforce the provisions of the Conservation Restriction but at the same time, they cannot ignore any of them.  Since there seems to be some major differences regarding the interpretation of the CR, and since the WLT refused to enter mediation, then the only recourse left to the Town was to sue.  The WLT clearly does not want a 3rd party weighing in, they want their version of the CR to be final, and the owner doesn't agree to that.  The cost of this non-binding Special Election is $27000, the current lawsuit expense to date for the Town is $12000.  This election could have been obviated by citizens simply writing to the Elect Board members, it has the same effect at no cost.

Sincerely
Matthew Christensen
727 Gay St

2
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
1-23-2026 2:00pm

Mr. Christensen, with respect to your comments on the cost of the town meeting. Many residents did reach out to the select board, by email and public comment at select board meetings. You can review the videos of those meetings. There are many questions with regards to the projected cost of the litigation, which has the potential to go on for years and far exceed the $12,000 spent to date. There are also questions about how the litigation benefits the town as a whole vs. just one party. The select board has so far declined to answer these questions, which are not unreasonable for the public to pose. The petition for the special town meeting was a last resort option to have residents’ questions answered. If the select board had opted for transparency and discourse with the town, the meeting and associated cost would not have been necessary.

2
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
1-24-2026 12:16pm

Hello Mr. White - Thank you for this information. I appreciate your providing the history of ownership as it seems relevant to this discussion that the land was actually donated to the town by the Westwood Preservation Society, of which Charles Bean was President and Director, with Duncan McFarland as Treasurer and Director. Westwood Preservation Society owned the property for nearly a year before donating it to the town. Perhaps it was simply a tax or legal maneuver to give control and ownership of the land to the Westwood Preservation Society for that short time (as the WPS had its own limitations), but this fact, together with the plain language of the conservation restriction regarding agricultural use, is at odds with much of the narrative around this issue. Also, if the assertion that the intent was to preserve the land “in its natural state” is true, the implication that the parties to a legally binding conservation restriction never intended to comply with some of its terms is troubling.

My personal opinion is that allowing that portion of the property to be farmed according to the terms of the conservation restriction is of greater benefit to Westwood taxpayers than simply maintaining the open field, and I support the Select Board’s defending its rights with respect to taxpayer-owned lands.

The generosity of the McFarlands and the work of the Westwood Land Trust to preserve open space are very much appreciated. I hope that the Westwood Land Trust will work with the Select Board to resolve this and end the waste of taxpayer funds for special meetings and litigation.

2
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive