Following hours of passionate testimony, presentations, and at least one downtown rally, the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) is now charged with rendering a final decision on the operations of popular local wildlife rehabilitator Eunice DeMond, pitting the community benefits of her work against neighbor concerns.

At its most recent meeting on July 7, the PZC chose to close the public hearing portion of DeMond’s application, giving itself 65 days to render a decision on whether or not she will be allowed to continue her wildlife rescue operation on her property at Old Whitfield Street.

DeMond has been treating injured, orphaned, or sick wildlife for more than a decade. Local police refer residents to her and people from all over the state to entrust her with the care of abandoned baby raccoons found in attics or injured possums found on the side of the road.

But following a complaint from a neighbor, who happens to be an alternate on the PZC, the town has been forced to examine its own regulations and rules against DeMond’s home-grown facility, which has been licensed by the state for about six years. DeMond is seeking a special exception permit under a regulation that allows non-profit operations in residential zones.

One of the barriers to DeMond’s operation, which is known semi-formally as “Little Rascals,” was removed by the Board of Selectmen (BOS) last week when it altered an ordinance that expressly forbade caring for or sheltering wildlife in town, which would have disallowed her work.

Officials said the original purpose of the ordinance was to address a specific rabies scare in the early 1990s, and not meant to apply to a case like DeMond’s.

The altered ordinance creates an exception for anyone who is licensed by the state and remains in compliance with local health and zoning code, essentially giving the PZC responsibility for ruling on DeMond’s current activities.

“This is a land use issue,” said First Selectman Matt Hoey. “[Changing the ordinance] is not an endorsement or a promotion or anything about the applicability of [DeMond’s] facility relative to permitting and zoning regulations.”

Outpouring of Support

Outside of the regulatory and zoning issues, which remain murky and unprecedented, the case has elicited widespread interest through the community, with dozens of people writing letters, speaking at public meetings, or putting up signs in support for Little Rascals.

More than anything, those who have worked with or interacted with her have sought to emphasize just how dedicated she is to the care of helpless creatures, driving to pick up animals day or night and putting in numerous hours of work to feed and care for them at her home.

Linda Van Steenburgen spoke at the July 7 public hearing, and described calling the Guilford Police Department recently after finding an injured rabbit. An officer referred her to DeMond, she said.

“I said, ‘But what if she’s not available, what if she’s busy?’ [He said,] ‘You want Eunice, she’s the only one.’ Literally, a police officer tells a resident to call a citizen, a fellow citizen, a volunteer,” Van Steenburgen said.

“The only thing greater than her knowledge is her heart,” said Paige McHugh, a Killingworth resident who said DeMond had helped her rehabilitate a family of rabbits on her property. “It’s quite literally her life. It’s her passion in every sense of the word...She means the world to us and the many orphaned and injured animals who are blessed enough to come into her care. She is as much a part of Guilford as your firefighters and police.”

Rose Morals, a fellow wildlife rehabilitator from New Britain, also showed up to speak in support of DeMond, detailing the amount of money it takes to do wildlife rehab work—hundreds of dollars for formula, cages, cleaning supplies, and utility bills—with minimal support from the state.

In her application, DeMond has requested permission to take as many as 40 animals at a time from a handful of species.

DeMond also brings in people for “emotional therapy” at the facility, according to Morals, and has also mentored other wildlife rehabilitators.

“She not only rehabs these animals, she rehabs the community,” Morals said.

With many other similar stories, those who support DeMond have made the argument that her work is implicitly supported by the town and fits into Guilford’s larger plans and commitments to creating an empathetic community regardless of the exact definitions or strictures on specific zones.

Further, disallowing her from running Little Rascals on her property would be essentially shutting down the operation, according to Morals and another wildlife rehabilitator, as the expense and commute time to another location is not possible for an operation like DeMond’s.

Thomas Crosby, a lawyer representing DeMond on the application, argued that the state already provides plenty of regulatory oversight and has found that Little Rascals has been responsive and addressed any issues that came up.

“We have a situation where someone is providing a benefit to our entire community,” he said. “You don’t have to get into the specific regulations of what goes on day in and day out.”

The Issues

Bill Freeman and Alicie Dolce bought the property next door to DeMond about four years ago, built a house, and began living there in 2019. Whether or not they knew about Little Rascals—or could have known—was not clear and has been a focus of significant disagreement.

Dozens of DeMond’s supporters accused Freeman and Dolce of throwing their weight around and trying to shut down Little Rascals over issues they should have been aware of, calling them “ignorant” and accusing them of trying to gentrify the town.

“You don’t like rallies? You know, that’s kind of what happens when you do something like this,” said Cindy Vaporis at the BOS hearing last week.

Freeman and Dolce have contended, and cited various state and local inspections over the last few years as evidence, that DeMond’s operation opens up their property to gross nuisances including rats, flies, odor, and unsightly blight.

Freeman recused himself from the process, though he also attended both public hearing sessions on DeMond’s application.

Before Freeman and Dolce’s complaint, DeMond was twice cited by the Town Health Department—once for blight in 2019, and once again in 2020 for evidence of a rodent infestation. Those issues were subsequently addressed, according to officials.

Laurie Fortin, a wildlife biologist working for the state Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP), referenced “stumbles” by DeMond years ago, but was also effusive in praising her operation, and her character personally.

“She has most certainly made herculean efforts to make improvements in order to maintain the privilege of working with wildlife, and I believe she will continue to do so,” Fortin wrote.

Fortin joined local health and zoning officials in an inspection of DeMond’s property in April and found no sign of rodents or other violations, though DeMond has not been able to take in any animals since January due to a cease and desist order following the complaint.

Dolce wrote a detailed letter to the PZC, saying that they have experienced “negative impacts” and noting that DeMond has expanded the facilities that houses animals significantly with relatively little oversight. She has also said publicly that it has been an “unacceptable and unreasonable burden” trying to get the obvious issues with Little Rascals scrutinized by the town, and that she has been a victim of “character assassination.”

“I think a logical question is, what can the town do to support [DeMond’s] ability to successfully rehab animals while also making sure there are not negative impacts on the neighbors and people who walk by?” she said. “It just doesn’t seem that this is a sustainable model in the long run.”

The Regulations

At the conclusion of the PZC public hearing, it seemed that members were unsure how to proceed. From a strictly technical standpoint, DeMond is seeking to be recognized as a facility of “philanthropic, charitable, agricultural, historical, and cultural institutions or societies not conducted as a business or for profit,” which the commission has some discretion in defining.

But these very broad questions, and the high level of discretion the PZC has as far as interpretation seemed to give members pause, as they eventually decided to consult with legal counsel without engaging in substantial discussion on the application.

Among these issues is a brand-new term introduced in the modified ordnance that was just approved by the BOS: “facility for wildlife rehabilitation.”

There is no definition of this term in Guilford’s zoning codes, and therefore no established way to determine how to restrict or regulate one.

Marjorie Shanskey, the attorney representing Dolce and Freeman, said that the case was not about the emotion around DeMond’s work, but the lack of explicit standards and definitions in Guilford’s code.

“I want to talk about zoning. I want to talk only about zoning, the law, and the integrity of the Guilford zoning regulations, because that is the core issue here. That is the jurisdiction of the commission,” she said.

Shansky argued that trying to fit DeMond’s facility under the section allowing non-profits in the residential district would require the PZC to “free-associate” what kind of restrictions to apply to it due to the unique and specific issues of wildlife rescue. She contended that things like parking for volunteers, insurance, and access by emergency vehicles all needed to be addressed, but had not been by DeMond or through the PZC regulation under which DeMond had applied.

“We cannot elevate interests of a single individual, no matter how good the work is. The appropriate course here...is to amend your regulations to provide it and to adopt standards,” Shansky said. “If you deem it appropriate to evaluate under special permit standard, it will fail. It must fail in order to preserve the integrity of the zoning regulations for everybody else.”

Zoning Enforcement Officer Erin Mannix made it clear that a lack of definition for a use does not preclude the PZC from approving DeMond’s application.

“I am not yet swayed that an absence of definition that we cannot permit the use. I would still like to hear from counsel,” she said.

Another question is whether or not DeMond’s site plan fulfilled PZC requirements that it be a “professional” site plan, after it denied a request by Crosby to waive that requirement. Shansky called the plan “woefully deficient,” while Mannix said there were “some outstanding items” to be addressed.

Crosby explained that DeMond has relied on volunteer work for much of the application process, even though the plan was created by a professional architect.

Mannix added that the PZC could also consider another regulation that allows “wildlife sanctuaries and nature preserves” as of right in residential districts, though this also is undefined in Guilford’s regulations.

“I can read into wildlife sanctuary some of the activities that Ms. DeMond is doing,” Mannix said.

“We have our homework to do,” said PZC Chair Phil Johnson.

The PZC next meets on Wednesday, July 21. That will be a virtual meeting, according to the town website, and will include deliberation on DeMond’s application.