Roxbury Couple In Fight To Let Hikers, Dog Walkers On Their Property

ROXBURY, CT — A local couple owns 50 acres of forested rural property and wants hikers and dogwalkers to enjoy it for a small fee.

But Charles and Elizabeth Copley say town officials are blocking them.

Subscribe

Now, the Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based nonprofit, is trying to help them resolve the dispute.

Attorneys with the Institute, who are representing the couple for free, sent a letter Aug. 27 to town leaders. The letter aims to stop officials from preventing the Copleys from allowing hikers and dogwalkers on their land.

Institute Attorney John Korevec said people have a right to use their property as they see fit, as long as it isn't harming anyone else.

"What the Copleys are seeking to do with their property not only doesn't harm anyone else, it actively helps with forest management and provides people with access to peaceful, private hiking trails," Korevec said.

The couple, who have young children, bought the property on Rucum Road in 2022. They wanted to maintain the forest and have a place for peace and quiet, according to their attorneys. Beginning in 2024, Charles Copley created a miles-long network of trails throughout the acreage.

The Copleys worked with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to create a forest management plan.

This plan includes regular foot traffic from hikers to keep low-growth vegetation at bay, the couple's legal team said. Walking the trails by themselves wouldn't be enough, they assert, so the couple offered their trails to hikers and dogwalkers.

The Copleys advertised on the website, "SniffSpot," and began welcoming people to use their trails for an hourly $10 fee. The couple says they have informed visitors that any dogs must remain leashed and be up-to-date on their shots.

"It was a win-win situation: The Copleys received help maintaining the hiking trails and the hikers found a private place with less busy trails," their legal team said. "At $10 per hour, the operation was no cash cow. Rather, it was simply meant to help defray the cost of property maintenance."

In April 2025, local zoning officials sent the couple a "Possible Notice of Violation." It suggested the Copleys were running a "dog park" and provided a copy of the town's home-based business regulations, but made no mention of how or why the use might be prohibited, according to the couple's attorneys. The notice concluded by asking the business to cease operation unless the "home enterprise requirements are met."

Since then, the couple has spent months speaking with state regulators, and local land use boards and officials in an attempt to resolve the issue, without success.

"Under our reading of Roxbury's codes, the Copleys' use is permissible. And yet Roxbury has advised the Copleys—without referencing any law, ordinance, or rule clearly prohibiting the act—that they may not, for nominal compensation, allow others onto their 50-acre property to hike or walk a dog," the letter states.

Charles Copley called the whole process "incredibly frustrating."

"All we want to do is invite people onto our own private land, and the town government can't give us a clear answer as to why we shouldn't be allowed to do so," he said.

In their letter, the couple asked to either be allowed to have hikers on their land again or to be given clarity as to why that use is not allowed, so they can appeal to the local Zoning Board of Appeals, or pursue litigation in the courts.

Institute Senior Attorney Ari Bargil, also part of the couple's legal team, said Connecticut law "prohibits localities from stretching codes to ban uses they don't like."

"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.

The letter gives the town until Sept. 30 to explain exactly why the Copleys may not rent their property for hiking or dog walking. It also asks the town to say if it is willing to find a collaborative solution which would allow it.

According to the letter, if they don't get any such notification, the Copleys plan to resume their prior use, allowing hikers and dogwalkers back, as of Oct. 1.

John Cody, Roxbury zoning & wetlands enforcement officer, declined to comment Friday.

The Roxbury Zoning Commission's meeting minutes show the panel had a special permit application for the Rucum Road property on its October 2025 agenda. The application was for agritourism and educational activities, including recreation on marked trails.

"Due to issues with the application, including incorrect notification of abutters and questions about the legality of operating a business on unoccupied property, the applicant was advised to withdraw and resubmit the application with the correct information," the meeting minutes state. "The Commission agreed to allow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice, meaning the applicant could reapply without penalty. The applicant agreed and withdrew his application at that point."

Dan King, assistant director of media relations for the Institute for Justice, said the Copleys didn't resubmit an application after that because they were told they were ineligible.

"They were told they couldn't get a 'home' based business permit for a use that took place on a parcel that didn't have a home on it but that they could fix it if they merged the properties. The 50 acres is technically two separate properties (a 40 acre where the trails are, and a 10 acre where the house is). It would have cost them too much to merge the two properties."

The couple contacted the Institute for Justice to try to get a resolution.