Milford selectmen on July 28 approved a revocable access agreement that would let the Badger family drive about 12 feet from their driveway onto a cart road that borders the town forest, a measure backed by the Conservation Commission and the New England Forestry Foundation but questioned by several members of the board over process and precedent.

The board voted to approve the access agreement by voice vote after a 45‑minute discussion in which Conservation Commission supporters said the limited use would not alter the intent of the conservation easement and the foundation’s counsel had reviewed the document.

The matter drew extended discussion because the easement generally limits uses to those that protect conservation values. Chris Constantino, the meeting’s presenter on the item, told the board the access would be “the least impact of anything,” that the Badgers would drive roughly 12 feet on an existing road along the forest boundary and that New England Forestry Foundation and the commission do not view the planned use as changing the easement’s intent. “In their estimation, a 12 foot drive is not going to impact the conservation intent on this parcel,” Constantino said.

Why it matters: board members raised two recurring concerns — legal process and precedent. Several members asked whether the town must involve the Attorney General’s Charitable Trust Unit (CTU) to arbitrate questions about easement changes and whether a revocable access agreement creates a de facto amendment other landowners could use as precedent.

Selectman Chris Labonte said he was worried about setting an example for other abutters: “I actually have a hard time as far as setting precedent... You open yourself up to much more avenues as far as anybody that abuts town land.” Selectwoman Tina Philbrick pressed for legal review before voting, saying she could not “vote to agree to this unless I know we’re not going against the law.”

Speakers supporting the agreement stressed the limited scope and that the alternative — cutting a new road across private property or breaching a stone wall — would have greater impact on conservation values. Suzanne Fournier, coordinator of Roxy Environmental Citizens, told the board she believed the Badgers had a registered construction business and that New England Forestry Foundation’s monitors reported the Badgers had cut through the boundary vegetation in places.

Board action and conditions: the motion to approve the revocable access agreement was made by a member identified in the meeting record as Mister Dougherty and seconded by Miss Philbrick. The motion passed by voice vote; the public record does not show a roll‑call tally. Several selectmen asked for a written confirmation from the New England Forestry Foundation or counsel that their review supports the access as consistent with the easement; the board asked staff to obtain written documentation to “protect the town” before finalizing implementation.

Points of contention and next steps: opponents and some board members recommended formal CTU review or an amendment process if the easement were to be changed permanently. Supporters noted the agreement is revocable, limited to the Badgers, and that the foundation’s counsel had suggested only minor edits (including naming Mrs. Badger) rather than a substantive amendment. The board instructed staff to request a formal letter from the New England Forestry Foundation confirming its legal position and to return to the board if additional legal steps are required.

Background and clarifications: presenters said the town forest conservation easement covers about 460 acres; the Badgers’ frontage on the abutting parcel was described as roughly 400 feet, and the proposed driving uses about 12 feet of an existing cart road along the boundary. The easement text cited during discussion includes a town code/reference read as “chapter 4 72, section 6” regarding stone walls and boundary markers and a reserved‑rights clause listing construction, relocation, maintenance and use of trails, fences, kiosks, bridges, gates, stone walls, woods roads and rights of way when “necessary [and] desirable to control unauthorized use or to facilitate authorized use of the property.”

Ending: The board approved the revocable access agreement but left in place requests for a written legal acknowledgement from New England Forestry Foundation. If the foundation or staff determine additional steps are required, the board indicated it would revisit the item at a future meeting.