When Charles and Eli Copley bought a fixer-upper cottage on 50 wooded acres in Roxbury, Connecticut, in 2022, they saw the property as a long-term family project and a chance to care for a piece of land that could also be shared, in a limited way, with other people.
According to Institute for Justice attorney John Korevec, the couple built trails, removed invasive growth, worked with the Natural Resources Conservation Service on a forest management plan, and eventually began allowing one or two hikers or dog walkers at a time to use the private trails for a small fee that helped support upkeep.
That arrangement lasted until the town sent the Copleys a “Possible Notice of Violation” tied to its home-based business rules, beginning a dispute that has now stretched for more than a year and left the family saying they still have not been clearly told what law they are violating.
The Couple Says The Use Is Harmless
Korevec said the Copleys never viewed the trails as a conventional business, nor did they believe that allowing a small number of people to walk through their woods would violate local zoning rules.
Charles said the idea that the activity could be considered a problem caught him completely off guard.
“I never imagined that what we were doing could be a problem,” he said. “It doesn’t impact anybody in any way, and it’s only beneficial to the forest.”
Eli made a similar point, saying the property is large enough that the activity can remain well away from neighboring homes, while the family has received no complaints from people living nearby.
“We’ve always been very careful to be very respectful of our neighbors,” she said. “We’ve not had any complaints.”
That matters because zoning fights often turn on impacts such as traffic, noise, crowding or disruption, yet the Copleys describe an operation that involves only a handful of visitors spread across 50 acres.
Private Trails Were Part Of A Larger Forest Plan
The family’s case is also unusual because the hiking trails were not simply added as a side business after the fact.
Korevec said the Copleys had already worked with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop a forest management plan, and part of that plan relied on regular foot traffic to help control aggressive low-growing vegetation.
Charles and Eli also said the town’s own Wetlands Committee had reviewed that plan and understood that hiking was part of it.
“We were especially surprised to get the Notice of Possible Violation because the town’s Wetlands Committee had actually reviewed the entire forest management plan, which specifically states hiking,” Charles said.
From the family’s perspective, that made the later zoning objection even harder to understand.
The town’s ordinances, according to Korevec, do not explicitly prohibit paid private hiking, while other agricultural uses such as forestry and conservation are allowed in the area.
That is the central legal issue the Institute for Justice is now pressing: if the town wants to prohibit the Copleys’ activity, it should be able to point to a clear rule that actually says so.
Copleys Say They Tried Every Available Process
Charles said he spent months attempting to resolve the issue through the town’s normal channels.
He said he spoke with officials, pursued one permit, then a special permit with a public hearing, and later tried a text amendment to the zoning rules.
None of those efforts produced what he considered a clear answer.
“I’ve spoken with everybody in the town that will hear me,” Charles said. “At this point, nobody will give me a clear answer.”
Korevec said that kind of uncertainty is precisely the problem, because property owners should not have to spend a year moving through hearings, applications and emails without knowing which rule they are supposedly breaking.
“You shouldn’t have to go through a year of back and forth and emails and conversations and meetings and fighting, all the while not being able to do the activity, waiting for them to clarify,” he said.
Even setting aside the legal argument, that is a difficult process for an ordinary family to navigate. A property owner should not need a legal team just to determine whether a few people can walk on private woodland without disturbing anyone else.
The Trails Serve More Than Recreational Use
Eli said one reason the family liked opening the trails was that private hiking can serve people who may not feel comfortable using busier public spaces.
She mentioned solo hikers, birdwatchers, people who are afraid of dogs, and parents with neurodivergent children who may prefer quiet, controlled surroundings.
“I really like the idea of other people having a chance to use our land, that it’s not just us who are lucky enough to have these acres,” she said.
Because access was limited to very small numbers at a time, the family said the arrangement gave visitors a quieter alternative to public trails.
The Copleys also required dogs to remain leashed and current on vaccinations, while keeping trail activity far from neighboring properties.
Those details do not automatically settle a zoning dispute, but they reinforce the family’s claim that this was a low-impact use rather than something resembling a crowded commercial recreation business.
Institute For Justice Says The Town Is Overreaching
The Copleys have now partnered with the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm that frequently takes on property-rights and government-regulation cases.
Korevec said the organization is demanding what it considers a reasonable interpretation of Roxbury’s zoning code, one that would allow the family to resume inviting hikers onto the property.
“A town shouldn’t be able to make up ordinances that aren’t there to prevent someone from using their own property in a way that’s harmless, peaceful, and consistent with the surrounding area,” he said.
The Institute for Justice also argues that Connecticut law and the state constitution protect property owners against irrational or unequal restrictions.
Korevec said that if the town continues to deny the Copleys the use without pointing to a clear prohibition, the dispute could become a constitutional issue rather than just a local zoning disagreement.
“To deny them that interpretation wouldn’t just be incorrect,” he said. “It would be unconstitutional.”
Family Says The Fight Has Become About More Than Hiking
For the Copleys, the dispute is no longer just about whether hikers can use a few trails on their land.
Charles said the experience has come to feel like a broader fight over how much power local officials should have when applying vague zoning rules to ordinary private property use.
“It does feel like there’s an element here of abuse of power,” he said, comparing the experience to bullying. “If that is done to me, then I have to fight it back.”
That is what gives the case broader significance.
The specific activity is small: one or two people walking through a forest with permission from the owners. The larger question is whether a town can stop that use without clearly identifying the law that gives it authority to do so.
The Copleys say they are not asking to build a large commercial attraction or transform the character of their neighborhood. They want to continue maintaining their woods, let a limited number of people enjoy the trails, and receive a straightforward answer from the town about why that should not be allowed.
After more than a year of trying to get that answer, they have decided to force the issue with legal help rather than continue waiting.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
