This petition is being written 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 petition 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 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 certainly acceptable to disagree with their decisions, but it should be done in a respectful manner.

As I said above, this 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 sign this petition.