|
Zoning Bulletin February 25. 2015 I Volume 9 I Issue 4
<br />factor had been met: Care Services were created exclusively for the purpose of
<br />running the nursing home facility and thus to provide services on behalf of the
<br />state to individuals who otherwise would be receiving those services directly
<br />from the state. However, looking at the other factors, the Supreme Court of
<br />Connecticut disagreed with the trial court and found that none of them were
<br />met. Balancing all of those factors, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that
<br />they clearly weighed against a conclusion that Care Services were an arm of the
<br />state, entitled to share the state's sovereign immunity.
<br />The court also concluded that the state legislature did not intend, by enacting
<br />§ 17b-372a, to occupy the entire field as to regulation of nursing home location
<br />and preempt municipal zoning regulations. The court found that zoning regula-
<br />tions did not irreconcilably conflict with § 17b-372a or frustrate the state's
<br />statutory objective of establishing nursing homes for those in state custody. As
<br />a general matter, the court explained that "zoning regulations do not bar outright
<br />particular uses of land, but require that they be conducted in certain areas or
<br />subject to various conditions." "Thus, a regulation requiring a nursing home fa-
<br />cility to be located in a particular zone, or to have a permit that might impose
<br />conditions on its operation, does not `attempt to . . . forbid that which the
<br />legislature has expressly authorized . . . but rather, properly subjects what the
<br />legislature has authorized to additional requirements," said the court.
<br />See also: Gordon v. H.N.S. Management Co., Inc., 272 Conn. 81, 861 A.2d
<br />1160 (2004).
<br />See also: Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc., 234 Conn. 221,
<br />662 A.2d 1179 (1995).
<br />See also: Greater New Haven Property Owners Ass'n v. City of New Haven,
<br />288 Conn. 181, 951 A.2d 551 (2008).
<br />Case Note:
<br />The court noted that its conclusion that the facts of the case did not present an appropri-
<br />ate occasion for affording sovereign immunity to a private, for profit entity was sup-
<br />ported in the decisions of other jurisdictions. See, e.g, Rosario v. American Corrective
<br />Counseling Services, Inc., 506 F.3d 1039, 1047 (ll th Cir. 2007) (bad check restitution
<br />program run by private contractor for State's Attorney's Office not inunune from suit al-
<br />leging unfair debt collection practices); Ormsby v. C.O.F. Training Services, Inc., 194
<br />F. Stipp. 2d 1177, 1179, 1187 7 Wage & Hottr Cas. 2d (BNA)1258, 146 Lab. Cas. (CCH)
<br />P 34506 (D. Kan. 2002) (nonprofit corporation overseeing provision of community ser-
<br />vices for developmentally disabled persons, pursuant to contract authorized by state
<br />statute, not immune, as arm of state, from employee's action for overtime wages), judg-
<br />ment aff'd, 60 Fed. Appx. 724 (10th Cir. 2003); Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC v.
<br />National Trust Ins. Co., 3 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. 2014), on reh'g, 12 N.E.3d 240 (Ind. 2014)
<br />(private, for profit company operating city's water utility pursuant to agreement not
<br />entitled to sovereign innnunity in action seeking.damages for losses sustained due to in-
<br />adequate water supply to fire hydrants); Macon Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Macon -
<br />Bibb County Planning and Zoning Com'n, 252 Ga. 484, 490, 314 S.E.2d 218 (1984)
<br />(governmentally financed nonprofit organization providing housing for developmentally
<br />disabled and mentally ill persons not exempt from local zoning regulations), appeal
<br />dismissed, 469 U.S. 802, 105 S.Ct. 57, 83 L.Ed.2d 8 (1984); Board of Child Care of
<br />©2015 Thomson Reuters 11
<br />
|