Connecticut General Statutes
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-322 (2026)
Hearing and finding of suitability
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 14-322 is repealed, effective October 1, 2003.
(1949 Rev., S. 2539; 1967, P.A. 794; P.A. 82-89; P.A. 84-429, S. 45; P.A. 03-184, S. 10.)
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1960–2001 · leading case: Hendel's Investors Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 771 A.2d 182 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
Hendel's Investors Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 771 A.2d 182 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). “General Statutes § 14-322 (a) provides in relevant part: “No certificate of approval shall be issued unless the local authority finds that the location is suitable for the sale of gasoline and the other products referred to in section 14-319, due consideration being given to the…”
Chevron Oil Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 365 A.2d 387 (Conn. 1976). “The reasons given for the denial of the application, however, related solely to the issue of the variance sought.”
Welch v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 257 A.2d 795 (Conn. 1969). “” General Statutes § 14-322. The plaintiffs’ application recited thát their premises were 750 feet from the town hall, 750 feet from a church, 1200 feet from one road intersection, opposite another road intersection, 1350 feet from a little league field, and a mile and a half…”
Dubiel v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 162 A.2d 711 (Conn. 1960). “§14-322; Executive Television Corpo *519 ration v.”
State v. Zuniga, 357 S.E.2d 898 (N.C. 1987). “C.G.S. § 14-322 (1986) (abandonment and nonsupport).”
McDermott v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 191 A.2d 551 (Conn. 1963). “The defendant zoning hoard of appeals, acting under General Statutes § 14-322, granted a certificate of approval to the defendant Mark Granato for the location of a gasoline station at 36-42 Kimberly Avenue, which is across the avenue and about 150 feet from McDermott’s station.”
Vicino v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 611 A.2d 444 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992). “Thus, the zoning board of appeals does not act as the “voice of the people,” *505 as it claims.”
Sun Oil Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 221 A.2d 267 (Conn. 1966). “Obviously, the use of premises for a gasoline station in a zone in which such a use is prohibited would not be “suitable” under General Statutes § 14-322 even though the other criteria specified in that statute were met.”
State v. Whittle, 454 S.E.2d 688 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995). “C.G.S. § 14-322 (1993) (abandonment and failure to support spouse and children).”
Tucker v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 199 A.2d 685 (Conn. 1964). “The issuance of a certificate under § 14-321 would require a finding by the board of appeals, after a hearing, that the location was “suitable for the sale of gasoline and other products, due consideration being given to the proximity of schools, churches, theatres or playhouses…”
Etzel v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 235 A.2d 647 (Conn. 1967). “By proceeding as they did, without seeking or having sought a special exception under the zoning ordinance, the applicants adopted a procedure calculated to place the board in the incongruous position of undertaking to decide whether the location was suitable for the sale of…”
Atl. Refining Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 192 A.2d 40 (Conn. 1963). “The first is the suitability of the proposed location in view of the proximity of schools, churches, theaters or playhouses or other places of public gathering, intersecting streets, traffic conditions, width of the highway and the effect of public travel; the second is that the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.