A Connecticut couple is taking legal action against the town of Roxbury after officials told them they could not continue allowing hikers and dog walkers to use trails on their private 50-acre property, a dispute that has now stretched on for more than a year.
WTNH News 8 reporter Mackenzie Maynard said Charles and Eli Copley bought the land in 2022 and were drawn to it largely because of the forest.
Charles Copley, who comes from a farming family, said owning the property gave him a chance to manage a piece of land himself.
“I thought that was a great opportunity and since then I’ve become more and more passionate about it,” he told News 8.
Couple Says Hiking Was Part Of Forest Management
Maynard reported that Charles took forestry management classes after buying the land and later worked with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to create a management plan for the property.
Part of that plan, the couple said, involves people walking through the woods because foot traffic helps keep some low-growing vegetation under control.
The Copleys therefore opened their trails to hikers and dog walkers and advertised the property online.
Visitors paid about $10, with the couple saying the money went toward maintaining the trails.
Charles emphasized that the scale of the activity was small compared with the size of the property.
“This is not a controversial use of the land, 38 football fields and I’m relying on one or two people to walk on it,” he said.
He added that dogs were leashed, the trails were marked and he had tried to make sure the activity did not disturb neighbors.
On its face, that sounds like a fairly modest use of a large rural property. The conflict appears to be less about crowds or noise and more about how the town’s zoning rules classify what the Copleys are doing.
Town Sends Possible Violation Notice
The dispute began in April 2025, when the Copleys received what Maynard described as a “Possible Violation Notice” from Roxbury.
According to the couple’s attorneys, the town suggested they were effectively operating a “dog park” and provided them with regulations governing home-based businesses.
The Copleys say they tried to resolve the issue through the normal zoning process.
Maynard reported that they applied for multiple permits but continued running into denials.
That left them frustrated because, from their point of view, they were not constructing a major commercial attraction or changing the basic character of the land.
Charles said he originally believed the issue should have been easy to clear up.
“I began the whole process thinking that this should be straightforward, and then gradually became more and more frustrated with the process as the whole thing unwound,” he said.
Attorneys Say Town Has Not Explained The Problem
After months of disagreement, the Copleys hired attorneys with the Institute for Justice.
Attorney John Korevec questioned why the town was treating casual hiking and dog walking as a zoning problem at all.
“The town is unable to explain how allowing people to walk outside on private property could possibly be problematic,” Korevec told News 8.
The couple’s legal team is now asking Roxbury to identify the specific ordinance that prohibits the use.
Institute for Justice senior attorney Ari Bargil said Connecticut law does not allow municipalities to stretch zoning codes simply because officials dislike a particular activity.
“Roxbury must identify an ordinance that clearly prohibits what the Copleys are trying to do, and if it can’t identify one, it must allow them to resume their use immediately,” Bargil said.
That is likely to become the central issue if the dispute reaches court: not whether Roxbury generally has zoning authority, but whether its existing rules actually prohibit what these landowners are doing.
Eli Copley Says The Process Became Exhausting
Eli Copley said the family initially expected conversation with town officials to solve the problem.
Instead, the dispute has continued for roughly 16 months.
“We started out super optimistic,” she said. “We’ll just talk to people and work it out.”
She said that optimism faded as the process became longer, more expensive and more draining.
“To see that it could take this much time and this much energy and just exhaustion to just do something as simple as letting people hike on our land, it just made me really concerned,” Eli said.
That frustration is understandable even without taking a side on the zoning question. When a disagreement over a few hikers reaches the point where property owners feel they need a legal team, something that once seemed minor has clearly turned into a much larger fight.
Couple Demands Permission Or A Clear Answer
Maynard reported that the Copleys sent the town a letter asking for one of two things.
They want either permission to resume allowing hikers and dog walkers onto the property, or a clear explanation of exactly which law prohibits them from doing so.
If the town identifies such a rule, their attorneys say they are prepared to challenge it in court.
The couple argues that they have made repeated attempts to comply with the town’s process rather than simply ignoring officials.
Charles said he still finds it difficult to understand how the situation reached this point.
“It just seems inconceivable to me that it would take a year to get to this and to have lawyers to be able to do that,” he said.
Roxbury Had Not Responded To News 8
WTNH said it contacted the town of Roxbury for comment on the dispute.
The town had not responded by the time Maynard’s report aired.
That means the public has so far heard far more detail from the Copleys and their attorneys than from the officials whose zoning interpretation triggered the conflict.
Until Roxbury explains its position more fully, the unanswered question remains fairly basic: what specific harm or zoning violation does the town believe occurs when a small number of people walk marked trails on 50 acres of private land?
For the Copleys, the issue has now moved beyond hiking.
It has become a broader dispute over how far local government can go in controlling ordinary uses of private property when the landowners themselves believe no clear ordinance forbids what they are doing.
After more than a year of applications, notices and legal discussions, they appear ready to have a court answer that question if the town will not.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
