Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 14 — · Chapter 246 — Motor Vehicles
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-55 (2025)

Hearing

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 14-55 is repealed, effective October 1, 2003.

(1949 Rev., S. 2395; 1961, P.A. 384; 1967, P.A. 866, S. 2; P.A. 80-206; P.A. 02-70, S. 25; P.A. 03-184, S. 10; 03-265, S. 9; 03-278, S. 40.)

Section has been repealed. 337 C. 806.

As no laws have been passed to repeal or otherwise amend section since the court in East Coast Towing, Ltd. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 51 Conn. L. Rptr. 572, concluded this section was not repealed, this court adopts reasoning of lower court and concludes that current revision of section that remains in effect is the language of Sec. 9 of public act 03-265. 192 CA 275; judgment reversed, see 337 C. 806.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1972–2022 · leading case: One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 217 A.3d 1015 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 217 A.3d 1015 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 50× “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the defendant had standing to apply to the board for approval of the application, (2) upheld the board’s decision, despite the board’s failure to review the application in accordance with General…”
One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 256 A.3d 151 (Conn. 2021). · cites it 45× “to 2003) § 14-55), no certificate of approval for a license to deal in or to repair motor vehicles ‘‘shall be issued until the application has been approved and such location has been found suitable for the business intended .”
Vicino v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 611 A.2d 444 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 13× “I The zoning board of appeals first claims that the trial court incorrectly interpreted the role of the zoning board of appeals under General Statutes §§ 14-54 and 14-55.”
Mohican Valley Concrete Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 815 A.2d 145 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 14× “The court, however, declined to rule on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the board’s decision because, in violation of General Statutes § 14-55, 2 the board had *47 failed to state the reasons for its decision on the record.”
Ferreira v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 712 A.2d 423 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 10× “The board claims that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court improperly (1) substituted its judgment for that of the board when it found that the proposed use of the site as a used car dealership complied with General Statutes § 14-55, and (2) granted a variance…”
DiBonaventura v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 588 A.2d 244 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “The administrative record reveals that the board held a public hearing on the application, as required by General Statutes § 14-55, 2 on November 14, 1988, continued to December 12, 1988.”
Pellitteri Chevrolet, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 573 A.2d 347 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990). · cites it 8× “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 14-55, which requires a zoning board of appeals to render its decision on an automobile dealership location application within sixty-five *348 days of the hearing on the application, mandates automatic approval…”
Pleasant View Farms Dev., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 588 A.2d 1372 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 14-55 provides in part: “[T]he local authorities .”
One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 277 A.3d 789 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 27× “The Superior Court concluded that the board had given due consideration to the suitability of the property and rendered judgment denying the appeal.”
Raymond v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 318 A.2d 119 (Conn. 1972). “A public hearing was held as provided in § 14-55 of the General Statutes, at which time the plaintiff amended his application to request a limited repairer’s license only.”
One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 277 A.3d 789 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 3× “The plaintiff applicant appealed to the Superior Court and argued in relevant part that § 14-55 had been repealed and that the agency was not permitted to consider the standards set forth in that statute when reviewing its application.”
State v. Collington, 847 S.E.2d 691 (N.C. 2020). “Collington’s motion for appropriate relief (MAR), vacating his conviction and ordering a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order in a unanimous, published opinion filed on 17 April 2018.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.