In 2022, a Connecticut couple bought a cottage on 50 acres and built forest trails; after charging visitors to walk there, they faced a zoning dispute and are fighting to reopen their land to hikers
A Connecticut couple who bought 50 acres of land in Roxbury in 2022 is fighting a zoning dispute after town officials told them they could not continue allowing hikers and dog owners to use their private forest trails for a fee.According to CT Mirror, Charles and Eli Copley had bought the property with plans to renovate an old cottage and manage the surrounding woodland. The couple worked with a forester to develop a forest management plan. The work included removing rubbish, deteriorating hunting structures and invasive species from the property. They also built a trail system through the woods to improve access for managing the land and eventually created about 1.3 miles of trails.The Copleys also wanted regular foot traffic to help control low-growing vegetation on the trails. Therefore, in 2024, they listed the property on Sniffspot, an online platform that allows people to rent private properties by the hour for dog walking. The Copleys charged $10 an hour and also allowed hikers to use the trails.The arrangement was meant to help maintain the trails and recover some of the costs of managing the forest. The property received about two or three bookings a week while the listing was active.
Officials raise zoning concerns
The arrangement continued for several months before the Copleys received a letter from the Roxbury Land Use Department in April 2025. The letter warned of a possible zoning violation and referred to the property as a “dog park”. It also included requirements for operating a “home enterprise” and advised the couple to stop renting out the property until the requirements were met.The Copleys initially tried to work with the town. They applied for permission to rent out the trails and spent months discussing the issue with officials. According to the couple, they were eventually told that they would need to combine the two parcels making up their property into one lot.The couple said doing so would require expensive surveys and could affect their ability to build a second house on the property. They did not agree to consolidate the parcels. They also explored changes to the town’s zoning rules but remained unable to find a way to reopen the trails.
Copleys challenge town’s interpretation
The Institute for Justice, which is representing the Copleys, said the couple stopped taking reservations after receiving the town’s notice and spent more than a year trying to resolve the issue.In August, attorneys for the Copleys sent a letter to Roxbury officials demanding that the couple be allowed to rent parts of the property for recreation or be given an explanation of why the activity violates local zoning rules.“The town has been unable to explain how allowing people to walk outside on private property could possibly be problematic, and that’s because there is no reason,” said John Korevec, an attorney with the Institute for Justice.“The Copleys have done this before without incident, and to our knowledge, there’s been no complaints,” Korevec added. “Zoning codes are supposed to prevent genuine nuisances, not punish peaceful people who are doing nothing wrong. That’s zoning abuse,” he said.Charles questiones why allowing people to walk on the forest had become such a difficult issue. “I just kept thinking, like, how can this be so hard with something as innocuous as this? Like, if I can’t do this, can anybody do anything?” he asked during a virtual press conference on August 27.The Institute for Justice argues that the couple’s forest management plan included low-impact recreation and that the town’s zoning rules allow agricultural and forestry uses as well as certain accessory uses. It also points to similar uses on land managed by a local land trust.The organisation further argues that the couple’s activity is different from a conventional home-based business because people are using outdoor trails rather than operating inside the house.
Appeal keeps dispute open
Tim Hollister, a land use attorney at the Hartford firm Hinckley Allen, told CT Mirror that home enterprise rules are common in Connecticut zoning codes and are often used for businesses such as a small medical office operating from a home.However, he said he had not heard of such rules being applied to outdoor activities. “It doesn’t occur inside your house, so it’s not a home enterprise,” Hollister said.He also noted that other issues, including parking or portable restroom access, could potentially raise separate zoning questions. “It may be something else, but it’s not the general understanding of the term home enterprise,” he said.
