The underlying dispute involves a parcel of conservation land located at 665 Clapboardtree Street, referred to by some as Prout Farm and by others as Clapboardtree Meadow.   We will refer to the property in dispute as the Land.  

​

The Land was given to the Town of Westwood (the “Town”) about 25 years ago by Westwood residents and philanthropists Duncan & Ellen MacFarland (the “Donors”), who wanted to preserve the Land its natural state and protect it from development.   

​

To accomplish this, they placed a Conservation Restriction (“CR”) on the Land, which is held and enforced by the Westwood Land Trust (the “Land Trust”), a private, nonprofit local charity.  This is the usual way of protecting conservation land.  The Town accepted the donation of the Land subject to the CR. 

​

Note, the Land in dispute is part of a larger parcel of property of about 29 acres under conservation.  It is contiguous to another parcel of conservation land located at 795 Clapboardtree Street (also donated to the Town by the Donors) which is just under 23 acres.  Together, these parcels comprise over 50 acres of natural, undeveloped land containing

 

"substantial wetlands, forests and open fields, providing a diversity of wildlife habitat... views and vistas... substantial scenic value.. [and] preserves the historical rural character of the area."

​

Under the terms of the CR,  agricultural activities are an exceptional use, meaning, they are not permitted as of right, but may be permitted, on an exceptional basis.

 

In other words, even if the proposed agricultural use may be permitted, it does not follow that it must be permitted. The determination of whether specific agricultural activities are, or are not, consistent with conservation of the Land is within the sole discretion of the Land Trust.

​

​

​

The Bean Farm, a private, for-profit farm (the “Farm”) which abuts the Land, has sought for many years to expand its agricultural operations onto the Land by leasing it from the Town.  

​

Because of the CR, the Town cannot enter into such a lease without the permission of the Land Trust.  The Land Trust has, over the last 9 years, consistently denied this permission.

​

All previous Select Boards have accepted this interpretation of the CR and the decisions of the Land Trust.

 

For unknown reasons, the current Select Board has not.

​

In 2024, the current Select Board formally requested, through the Conservation Commission, permission to lease the Land for private, for-profit agricultural use.  The Land Trust hired an independent consultant to study the ecosystem of the Land and to identify the impacts that converting the Land to farming use would have on it.  The Land Trust - once again - said no.

In July, 2025 the Town, through its Select Board, filed a lawsuit against the Land Trust, seeking a court’s permission to overrule the Land Trust and allow agricultural use on the Land.

​

​​

​

​

Legally, this a contract dispute.  Specifically,  pursuant to the CR, does the Land Trust have final say with respect to the whether or not the proposed agricultural use is allowed on the Land, and has this permission been “unreasonably withheld?”    

From a legal standpoint, any possible ambiguity regarding the intent of the CR must be examined through the lens of donor intent.  In this case,  the Donors 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 August, 2025, the Donors offered to purchase the Land back from the Town in order to end the dispute, reportedly for over $425,000.  According to the Donors:

“[r]ather than exploring the possibility of such a sale, and gauging the community’s interest in doing so, this [Select] Board unilaterally . . . ended any discussions before they truly began.”

​

​

​

And then, the Yard Signs . . .

​

In the Fall of 2025, Westwood residents began to notice yard signs around town asking us to

“Save the Bean Family Farm.”   For most of us, the yard signs were the first we had heard of the dispute or the lawsuit. 

The yard signs seemed to suggest that the Select Board was suing the Land Trust - at taxpayer expense - for the benefit of the private Bean Farm.  

​

The yard signs also seemed to suggest that the end result of the lawsuit would be to the exclusive, private benefit of the Bean Farm.

​

The Bean Farm also appears to have had access to public officials, and private information, that most residents did not. For instance, an “Agricultural Use & Conservation Plan,” written by the Bean Farm, is included as part of Exhibit E of the Town’s legal Complaint.  

​

Upon investigation, residents also learned about the Donors’ offer and the Select Board’s  decision to reject it without serious consideration or public discussion.  

​

We began to wonder how these decisions were serving the best interests of Westwood residents, and whether any financial benefits of successfully pursing litigation warranted the costs of attaining them, or could match the dollar value of the Donors’ offer to repurchase the land.

​

In a democracy, all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law. Our Select Board is supposed to represent the many, not the few. Friends, campaign supporters, and longtime Westwood residents are not entitled to any special treatment in their dealings with the Select Board which is not available to everyone else.  

​

In public and private conversations, the Select Board has continuously denied that it is using public funds to advance the interests of the private Bean Farm. However, its members have failed to put forth a credible alternative explanation, to articulate a public benefit which would justify these decisions, or to engage in any serious public discussion on this important question.  

​

Instead, it asks residents to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears and to believe that “No outcome is guaranteed for any particular farm or applicant” and that “regardless of the outcome of the litigation, any agricultural use of the property would be subject to applicable law and a fair and open public process.”

​

In a Dec. 18th Statement, the Board stated that it  “does not act primarily to accommodate specific individuals, businesses, or groups,” and that its goal is “not to favor any one party.” 

​

As a legal matter, our Select Board is prohibited from acting at all on behalf of specific individuals, businesses, or groups, or from favoring any one party.  Rather, they have a legal responsibility is to act only in the best interest of the town as a whole.  The Select Board also may not act as an “agent” for “anyone other than the municipality” in connection with any matter, such as this, where the town has a direct and substantial interest.

​

These conflict-of-interest laws  exist to foster integrity in public service in government, to promote the public's trust and confidence in that service, and to prevent conflicts between private interests and public duties.  

​

They make clear that the Select Board owes Westwood residents its undivided loyalty, and that Select Board members may not use their public positions to advance the cause of anything other than the public interest.   

​

At the FinCom meeting held on January 13th, Select Board Chair Gotti stated:

“It is in the public interest that any contracts with the Town are preserved, our rights are preserved and protected.  That is what we are seeking.  We have a disagreement on the language in the contract, in the Conservation Restriction, and when reasonable parties disagree, they seek the determination of the courts.  That is exactly what we are doing.”

​​

To which we respond:  Why?  Why now? Why this parcel?

​

According to Karen Manor, longtime Land Trust Board Member & past president, at the same FinCom meeting, of the 12 Conservation Restrictions the Land Trust holds, 5 have some kind of “agricultural use” clause.  Is the Select Board also seeking to “preserve and protect” those rights?

​

Their steadfast and stubborn refusal to directly and candidly address this fundamental question

 

Why?

 

has only served to further raise public suspicion and opposition.   

​

We support small businesses, local farms, and conservation.  
That is not what this is about.  

​

We have not been able to uncover a valid public purpose justification behind the Select Board’s actions - filing the lawsuit and rejecting the Donors’ offer - to refute the appearance that this is being done, using public funds, for the benefit of a private party.  

​

Absent a valid public interest justification, 
we believe the Select Board should drop the lawsuit.