§ 30-52 — Permit to specify location and revocability. Removal to another location.

Connecticut § 30-52

• Jurisdiction: Connecticut
• Title 30: Intoxicating Liquors
• Ch. 545: Liquor Control Act

Text

(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.

Legislative History

(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; 137 C. 23; 150 C. 427. In order to receive injunctive relief, taxpayers must allege and prove irreparable injury, not mere aggrievement; constitutionality upheld. 151 C. 414. Cited. 153 C. 314. Plaintiff's appeal sustained where defendant board granted variance without stating reasons for permitting liquor store within 1,500 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; 189 C. 153; 191 C. 528. Cited. 2 CA 628; 5 CA 432; 8 CA 12. Violation must be affirmatively established. 4 CS 350. Cited. 5 CS 418; 16 CS 355.