Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 30 — INTOXICATING LIQUORS · Chapter 545 — Liquor Control Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-44 (2025)

Mandatory refusal of permit where sale prohibited

✓ 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
The Department of Consumer Protection shall refuse permits for the sale of alcoholic liquor (1) in no-permit towns and (2) where prohibited by the zoning ordinance of any city or town.

(1949 Rev., S. 4262; 1959, P.A. 622, S. 1; 1971, P.A. 599; P.A. 73-44; P.A. 76-347, S. 5; 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. 95-195, S. 47, 83; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 146(d); P.A. 04-169, S. 17; 04-189, S. 1.)

History: 1959 act added Subdiv. (3); 1971 act deleted provision in Subdiv. (3) which had prohibited issuing permit to establishment which has a direct entrance into a commercial bowling alley establishment in all cases and added provision allowing issuance of restaurant permit to bowling alley or adjoining premises if permit premises are in a separate room and if there is a separate door to the alley which remains closed except to permit entrance and egress; P.A. 73-44 allowed issuance of cafe permit in Subdiv. (3) under the conditions specified for issuance of restaurant permits by 1971 act; P.A. 76-347 deleted Subdiv. (3) re permits in bowling establishments and adjoining premises and deleted provision prohibiting consumption of alcoholic liquor in any bowling alley establishment; 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. 95-195 substituted 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of Consumer Protection with Department of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective July 1, 2004; P.A. 04-189 repealed Sec. 146 of June 30 Sp.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.

See Sec. 30-52 re requirement that permit specify location and re removal to another location.

Cited. 131 C. 262. The word “tavern” as used in ordinance did not necessarily have the same meaning as it does in Liquor Control Act. 133 C. 152; Id., 236. Legislature has not delegated to towns authority to limit, in the guise of a zoning ordinance, the number of liquor outlets in the town as a whole. 134 C. 288. 1,000 foot limitation in a zoning ordinance is not invalid as an invasion of powers of commission. 135 C. 276. Cited. 136 C. 289; 140 C. 566. Provides for mandatory refusal of permits by liquor control commission. 142 C. 569. Appeal re issuance of liquor permit for restaurant adjacent to bowling alley dismissed as moot with enactment of 1959 act. 146 C. 740. Cited. 148 C. 721; 149 C. 291; Id., 680; 152 C. 547; 153 C. 51. Subdiv. (2) prohibits issuance of druggist liquor permit where prohibited by local zoning ordinances. 160 C. 120. Cited. 164 C. 175; 165 C. 185; 177 C. 610. Trial court had incorrectly equated issuance of a “night club liquor permit”, allowing sale of alcohol an extra hour where premises already operating under valid liquor permit, with issuance of license to use premises as a “night club”. 191 C. 528.

The duty of commission is nondelegable and it cannot substitute the legal opinion of a town or city clerk for its own findings. 15 CS 200. Constitutionality. 16 CS 298. Commission cannot issue a removal permit which violates local zoning ordinances. Id., 355.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1959–2020 · leading case: Town of Greenwich v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 469 A.2d 382 (Conn. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Town of Greenwich v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 469 A.2d 382 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 11× “In doing so, it rejected the claim that Greenwich zoning prohibited a night club permit for the premises and it found General Statutes § 30-44 5 inapplicable. Thereafter, Greenwich and Roddy appealed from the commission’s decision to the Superior Court.”
Karp v. Zoning Bd., 240 A.2d 845 (Conn. 1968). · cites it 8× “General Statutes § 30-44. The extent to which a town has a voice in and control over the sale of alcoholic liquor is illustrated by the localoption statute, which gives a town the right to exercise its option to prevent the sale of alcoholic liquor within its boundaries.”
Dubitzky v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 273 A.2d 876 (Conn. 1970). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 30-44 requires, in pertinent part, that the defendant liquor control commission refuse to issue a druggist liquor permit “where prohibited by the zoning ordinance of any city or town”.”
Koepper v. Emanuele, 319 A.2d 411 (Conn. 1972). · cites it 2× “Clearly, the sale of alcoholic beverages on the defendant’s premises within 500 feet of the library is in direct violation of the South Windsor zoning ordinances, and the issuance of a permit for such sale by the liquor control commission was in direct violation of § 30-44 of…”
Bendell v. Johnson, 212 A.2d 199 (Conn. 1965). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 30-44; cf. Kallay’s Inc.”
Kallay's Inc. v. Katona, 209 A.2d 185 (Conn. 1965). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 30-44. On June 12, the named defendant revoked her certification in a letter to the liquor control commission on the advice of the town attorney that the zoning ordinance did prohibit such a use at that address.”
Astarita v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 332 A.2d 106 (Conn. 1973). “[General Statutes] Section 30-44 (a).” The plaintiff appealed this ruling to the Court of Common Pleas, claiming that the action of the commission was arbitrary, illegal and in abuse of its discretion, and the city of Meriden and the zoning enforcement officer were permitted to…”
Ginsberg v. Post, 418 A.2d 941 (Conn. 1979). “” Performance of this duty requires that the commission, in acting upon applications referred to it, determine in each case whether the sale of alcoholic liquor is permissible under the zoning regulations of the particular town involved.”
Barnini v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 151 A.2d 697 (Conn. 1959). “1958, § 30-44. On January 20, 1958, the commission conducted hearings on the plaintiff’s application and that of Leon C.”
Santini v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 179 A.2d 621 (Conn. 1962). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes §30-44; Salerni v. Scheuy, 140 Conn.”
Stapleton v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 183 A.2d 750 (Conn. 1962). · cites it 2× “escribing minimum distances between liquor outlets, the liquor control commission “in cases of hardship caused by reason of the commencement of an eviction action” against a permittee could approve the removal of the permit “from one building or place in any zone to another…”
Lime Rock Park, LLC v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 335 Conn. 606 (2020). · cites it 2× “zoning ordinances’’); General Statutes § 25-109g (a) (authorizing zoning commission to ‘‘revise the zoning ordinances’’); General Statutes § 30-44 (referring to ‘‘the zoning ordinance of any city or town’’); see also, e.”
Show all 15 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.