Eunice Demond, the wildlife rehabilitator who unsuccessfully appealed the town’s decisions to force her to close down her wildlife rehab center this past year, has appealed a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decision in court, adding to an existing, similar suit seeking an overturn of a Planning & Zoning Commission decision.

Her latest action, filed in December via Guilford attorney Thomas Crosby, states that the town did not act in good faith when it rendered its decision to close her facility and that conflicting recommendations and decisions from multiple town departments created a conflict and reason to vacate the denial order that forced her to close.

Demond ran her organization, Little Rascals Rescue, for more than a decade out of her home on Old Whitfield Street, caring for a wide array of native species, including raccoons, squirrels, possums, and rabbits among others. Numerous individuals and organizations, including the Guilford Police Department and the State of Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, have all used Demond’s organization for animal rehabilitation during her time in operation and attested to her dedication and response.

The issue came to a head in January 2021 when the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, via Zoning Enforcement Officer Erin Mannix (also named in the suit), issued a cease and desist notice to Demond after complaints by neighbors. Demond appealed that decision and subsequent rulings, but eventually the town ruled this past October that the rules concerning this type of use and activity made clear that Demond was not in compliance with town’s ordinances and forced her to close the facility.

Demond and her attorney are arguing a number of points, including improper process of how the original complaint and cease and desist order were implemented, and also that the town has issued several contradictory rulings associated with Demond’s facility. She wants the order nulled and to be allowed to continue her rehabilitation efforts.

At issue is whether the vaguely worded ordinances that the town claims prohibit this type of facility use are in effect and enforceable. Variances, wording, and special permitting currently make it unclear whether Demond is correct in her assessment, or if the town is.

In the filings with the court, Demond and her attorney argue that several measures taken by the town prove their case and that the town at various points has not only been aware of the facility, but actively assisted in trying to resolve the non-compliance issues. They ultimately argue that Demond should be allowed to re-open her much needed facility.

One of those measures, Demond argues, was the fact that the town’s Health Department inspected and passed her property with full knowledge of what it was being used for. The suit also argues that town officials made recommendations to improve her property and she “had been induced by other departments of the town to continue said use…” making for a confusing set of responses that Demond felt affected the ZBA’s decision.

Town officials have said that though they have compassion for Demond and her work, a facility for dozens of wild animals is simply not permitted via long-standing town ordinances, and despite any interpretation of the ordinance wording, a facility of this type is not permitted.

Crosby said his client simply wants a reasoned and clear rationale from the town, claiming that the fractured and seemingly contradictory responses and actions by the town clearly indicate that his client’s contention that her facility is permitted is valid.

“Ms. Demond has been operating a shelter for 10-plus years and that shelter has been endorsed, if not supported, by the town of Guilford and its myriad of administrative agencies. The Police Department for one, has referred people to her with wounded animals. The Town Health Department has inspected the operation and at times requested improvements be made, and Ms. Demond has always made those improvements,” said Crosby “The state, although it’s a different entity than the town, has not only given licenses, but given compliments to Ms. Demond on how well she has taken care of these animals.

“We know this is a resource that is serving Guilford,” Crosby continued. “I think that a good judge with some common sense is going to say, ‘How is this volunteer doing something in philanthropic goodness be constrained by the definition of either “animal shelter” or “wildlife sanctuary” or some other definition, when you [the town] can’t even define what those terms mean?’ I hope such a judge will overturn this decision.”

The town went to court in mid-December to respond to the matter. At press time the case had been transferred from the New haven Superior Court to the land use litigation docket in the Judicial District of Hartford; no court dates had yet been set.