Sec. 30-52. Permit to specify location and revocability. Removal to another location.
Sec. 30-52. Permit to specify location and revocability. Removal to another
location. (a) Every permit for the sale of alcoholic liquor shall specify the town and the
particular building or place in such town in which such liquor is to be sold, and shall
not authorize any sale in any other place or building. Such permit shall also be made
revocable in terms for any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. Notwithstanding the existence of any local zoning ordinance or general statute prohibiting or
affecting the establishment or removal to a new location of an alcoholic liquor use within
certain specified distances of other alcoholic liquor uses of the same or different kinds,
the Department of Consumer Protection, in cases of hardship and in cases caused by
reason of the commencement of an eviction action against such permittee from the
particular building or place in such town specified in such permit, may endorse upon
such permit permission to the permittee to remove from one building or place in any
zone to another building or place in a proper business or industrial zone, and the permittee
shall thereupon be authorized to remove to such new location with such permit. The
applicant for such permission shall specify the building or place to which he wishes to
remove, and such new location shall comply with all other provisions of the local zoning
ordinances or general statutes except as hereinbefore provided; and such permittee shall
be allowed to move such permit premises only within a radius of seven hundred fifty
feet of the old permit premises. The removal of the permit premises from the particular
building or place specified in the permit without the approval of the department shall
be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the permit. In such cases an appeal from
an order refusing permission to remove may be taken in accordance with the provisions
of section 30-60. If the site of any permit premises is taken or threatened to be taken in the
exercise of the power of eminent domain, the department may authorize the relocation of
such permit premises to a new location, any local ordinance or general statute notwithstanding, provided such new location is zoned for business use and is within a radius
of seven hundred fifty feet from the point, on the boundary of the overall site of the
proposed taking, nearest to the site of such permit premises.
(b) Nothing in subsection (a) of this section or section 30-14a, shall be construed
as prohibiting the department from permitting the removal of such permit premises to
any location, including a location in another town, for any reason, provided: (1) Removal
to the proposed location complies with local zoning laws as required by section 30-44, (2)
the proposed location is not found to be unsuitable or prohibited by any other provision of
this chapter, except that a removal to a location in another town may be authorized only
if such removal complies with the provisions of section 30-14a provided, in any case
in which the department finds that the permittee has provided evidence satisfactory to
the department that the permittee is unable to secure a renewal or extension of his lease
and that the premises are to be demolished by their owner, and that the permittee is
unable to find, after reasonable efforts, a suitable location for removal of the permit
premises within the town in which the permit premises are located, have created a hardship, the department may waive the maximum permit limit provided by said section 30-14a and allow the removal of the permit premises to an adjacent town.
(c) Any action taken by the department authorizing the removal of such permit
premises prior to June 27, 1985, is hereby validated.
(1949 Rev., S. 4269; 1955, S. 2164d; 1961, P.A. 468; February, 1965, P.A. 177; P.A. 75-641, S. 15; P.A. 77-614, S.
165, 587, 610; P.A. 78-303, S. 80, 85, 136; P.A. 80-482, S. 4, 170, 191, 345, 348; P.A. 85-361, S. 2, 3; P.A. 88-78, S. 1,
2; P.A. 93-139, S. 53; P.A. 95-195, S. 53, 83; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 146(d); P.A. 04-169, S. 17; 04-189, S. 1.)
History: 1961 act changed the area limitation for relocation where the site of the permit premises is taken by eminent
domain and broadened the bases for granting permission to move premises; 1965 act changed area limitation for relocation
to new premises from 500 feet to 750 feet from old permit premises; P.A. 75-641 replaced previous provision stating that
"the law concerning appeals from commission's doings shall apply" to cases of "refusal of permission to remove" with
provision specifying that appeals may be taken in accordance with Sec. 30-60; P.A. 77-614 and P.A. 78-303 replaced
liquor control commission with division of liquor control within the department of business regulation, effective January
1, 1979; P.A. 80-482 made division of liquor control an independent department and abolished the department of business
regulation, overriding provision of same act which would have placed the division within the public safety department;
P.A. 85-361 added Subsec. (b) which allowed the removal of permit premises and Subsec. (c) which validated the actions
of the department of liquor control in allowing the removal of such premises; P.A. 88-78 amended Subsec. (b) concerning
the removal of permit premises to other towns; P.A. 93-139 made technical changes; P.A. 95-195 amended Subsec. (a) by
substituting Department of Consumer Protection for Department of Liquor Control, effective July 1, 1995; June 30 Sp. Sess.
P.A. 03-6 and P.A. 04-169 replaced Department of Consumer Protection with Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Protection, effective July 1, 2004; P.A. 04-189 repealed Sec. 146 of June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, thereby reversing the
merger of the Departments of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective June 1, 2004.
Cited. 127 C. 722. Cited. 137 C. 23. Cited. 150 C. 427. Cited. 153 C. 314. In order to receive injunctive relief taxpayers
must allege and prove irreparable injury not mere aggrievement. 151 C. 414. Constitutionality upheld. Id. Plaintiff's appeal
sustained where defendant board granted variance without stating reasons for permitting liquor store within fifteen hundred
feet of fifteen other liquor stores contrary to Bridgeport zoning regulations. 155 C. 500. Regulations of town zoning
authority may adopt more liberal standard where hardship, such as redevelopment taking of existing locations, exists. 156
C. 287. Cited. 163 C. 240. Cited. 189 C. 153. Cited. 191 C. 528.
Cited. 2 CA 628. Cited. 5 CA 432. Cited. 8 CA 12.
Violation must be affirmatively established. 4 CS 350. Cited. 5 CS 418. Cited. 16 CS 355.