Westwood MA
Public Notices and Press Releases
Saturday January 31 2026 9:08am

Town Meeting Article 33 in 2001 Limited the Use of Clapboardtree Meadow

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

While much discussion has revolved around the details of the conservation restriction at Clapboardtree Meadow and the discretion of the Westwood Land Trust to approve or disapprove of agricultural uses on the property, I respectfully suggest the discussion is actually much simpler. The voters in Westwood already stated their intention regarding the property twenty-five years ago. Apparently the Conservation Commission and Select Board either forgot or chose to ignore this simple Town Meeting decree.

To recap the history of the property: In 1999 Duncan and Ellen McFarland rescued this beautiful property from development. They donated a conservation restriction to the non-profit Westwood Land Trust, then donated the property to the non-profit Westwood Preservation Society. In 2000, WPS donated the land to the Town of Westwood, and at Town Meeting in 2001, the property was transferred to the Westwood Conservation Commission.

The official minutes of the 2001 Town Meeting regarding Article 33 read as follows:

"The Finance Commission recommended and the Town voted unanimously to transfer from the control of the Board of Selectmen to the control of the Conservation Commission, to be managed and controlled by said Commission, pursuant to G.L. Chapter 40, Section 8C, and as it may hereafter be amended, and other Massachusetts statutes relating to conservation, said land to be used for conservation and passive recreational purposes, a certain parcel of land on Clapboardtree Street described in a deed from the Westwood Preservation Society to the Town of Westwood dated June 19, 2000." (Emphasis added.)

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the plain language and clear intent of Article 33. The Town Meeting vote plainly did not suggest, allow, or contemplate commercial agricultural uses for the Meadow.

It has been suggested elsewhere that a subsequent decree by the Town cannot extinguish the language of the conservation restriction. It is true that local legislation cannot undo language in a conservation restriction. However, the citizens of Westwood, as owners of the land, can always add further restrictions to the use of the land, just as they did in 2001 with Article 33. The Town should honor that vote.

David White

Saunderstown, RI

Former resident of 870 Gay St, Westwood

Founding President of Westwood Land Trust

1
I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive

Replies

1-31-2026 10:28am

Sorry, David, I'm no buying it.  Your latest screed is yet one more attempt to confuse the issue, under the guise of a spurious legal opinion. The Town voted to transfer land from one town entity, the Selectboard, to another, the ConComm, which is the customary and natural manager of conservation land and open space held by the Town. That land was already subject to a conservation restriction. The Town Meeting vote, without reasonable doubt, was not undertaken to find some means to further restrict the land in question. It was obviously merely a ministerial,, a procedural action, not substantive, designed merely to get the title and management of the parcel to the town agency best suited for that task. Besides, as the yesterday’s excellent post from the Farm Bureau showed, farming and conservation of open space and preservation of conservation values are not mutually exclusive. Put a little more simply, when performed appropriately, farming IS conservation. So, there is no inconsistency with the vote and the restriction as written.

Article 33 was obviously voted in to allow the transfer of land to the ConComm, as it then existed, already burdened with or subject to a conservation restriction, which included specific terms that allow agriculture as a conditional use. It is simply silly to argue that the Town Meeting vote in question was put forward as a means to try to change or limit the nature or terms of the restriction.

3
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive