Agenda - Council - 05/26/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

February 25, 2015 I Volume 9 I Issue 4 Zoning Bulletin Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. iCare was negotiating with the State of Connecticut (the "State") to reopen the nursing home facility on the property and to place at that facility individuals who were in State custody. After hearing of the plans for the § 17b-372a facility, the Town filed a lawsuit. It asked the court to declare that SecureCare and iCare (hereinafter, collectively, the "Care Services") were prohibited from opening and operating the proposed facility on the property because such use would be noncompliant with Town zoning regulations and did not constitute a prior nonconforming use, and no special permit had been sought or issued. Care Services asked the court to dismiss the Town's action. Care Services claimed that the action was barred by sovereign immunity, and, therefore, should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. According to Care Services, they were an "arm of the state" and therefore immune from suit. The trial court agreed with Care Services. It found that Care Services met five of the eight factors used by courts in determining whether an entity should be immune from suit as an "arm of the state." Additionally, the court concluded that even if Care Services were not shielded by sovereign immunity as an arm of the state, the Town's zoning authority over the project was expressly preempted by § 17b-372a. The Town appealed. It argued that: (1) Care Services was not an "arm of the state," absolutely shielded from suit by sovereign immunity, because none of the eight factors used to determine whether an entity is an arm of the state was conclusively proven; and (2) § 17b-372a did not preempt local zoning regulations. DECISION: Judgment of superior court reversed, and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed with the Town. It held that Care Services was not an arm of the state entitled to assert a sovereign immunity defense in the zoning action brought against Care Services by the Town. The court also held that § 17b-372a does not preempt the application of town zoning regulations or irreconcilably conflict with municipal zoning regulations. In so holding, the court analyzed the "list of factors to guide courts in determining whether an entity should be immune from suit as an 'arm of the state.' " Those eight factors include consideration of whether: "(1) the state created the entity and expressed an intention in the enabling legisla- tion that the entity be treated as a state agency; (2) the entity was created for a pub- lic purpose or to carry out a function integral to state government; (3) the entity is financially dependent on the state; (4) the entity's officers, directors or trustees are state functionaries; (5) the entity is operated by state employees; (6) the state has the • right to control the entity; (7) the entity's budget, expenditures and appropriations are closely monitored by the state; and (8) a judgment against the entity would have the same effect as a judgment against the state." The court said that "[t]o establish that an entity is an at of the state, an entity need not satisfy every criteria. Rather, [01 relevant factors are to be considered cumulatively, with no single factor being essential or conclusive." Here, the trial court had determined that five of the eight factors had been met. The Supreme Court of Connecticut disagreed. It found that only the second 10 ©2015 Thomson Reuters