In deciding a site plan application, the commission acted in an administrative capacity. Allied Plywood, Inc. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 2 Conn. App. 506, 512, 480 A.2d 584, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 808, 483 A.2d 612 (1984). "If the plan . . . conforms to the regulation, the [commission] has no discretion or choice but to approve it."
For that reason, actions to enforce stipulated judgments properly are brought in the Superior Court. See, e.g., Garguilo v. Moore , 156 Conn. 359, 242 A.2d 716 (1968) ; Ghio v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc ., 212 Conn. App. 754, 276 A.3d 984, cert. denied, 345 Conn. 909, 283 A.3d 506 (2022) ; Haworth v. Dieffenbach , 133 Conn. App. 773, 38 A.3d 1203 (2012) ; Nauss v. Pinkes , 2 Conn. App. 400, 480 A.2d 568, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 808, 483 A.2d 612 (1984). It is undisputed that, in the decades following the 1953 judgment, public use of Miami Beach continued without impediment.
The agency has no independent discretion beyond determining whether the plan complies with the site plan regulations and applicable zoning regulations incorporated by reference. `A site plan may be modified or denied only if it fails to comply with requirements already set forth in the regulations.'" R. Fuller, 9 Connecticut Practice Series: Land Use Law and Practice (1993) § 2.2, pp. 17-18; see also Barberino Realty Development Corp. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 222 Conn. 607, 613-14, 610 A.2d 1205 (1992); SSM Associates Limited Partnership v. Plan Zoning Commission, 15 Conn. App. 561, 566-67, 545 A.2d 602 (1988); aff'd, 211 Conn. 331, 559 A.2d 196 (1989); Allied Plywood, Inc. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 2 Conn. App. 506, 512, 480 A.2d 584, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 808, 483 A.2d 612 (1984). The plaintiff claims that the decision of the trial court should be affirmed because it corrected an error of law by the commission.
When an agency undertakes consideration of a site plan application, it has no independent discretion beyond determining whether the plan complies with the site plan regulations and applicable zoning regulations incorporated into the site plan regulations by reference. Allied Plywood Inc. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 2 Conn. App. 506, 512, 480 A.2d 584, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 808, 483 A.2d 612 (1984). Under General Statutes 8-3 (g), "[a] site plan may be modified or denied only if it fails to comply with requirements already set forth in the regulations."
In addition, when a trial court reaches a decision on mistaken grounds, the trial court's action will be sustained, if proper grounds exist to support it. Allied Plywood, Inc. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 2 Conn. App. 506, 509, 480 A.2d 584, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 808, 483 A.2d 612 (1984), citing Favorite v. Miller, 176 Conn. 310, 317, 407 A.2d 974 (1978). This is such a case.
Because of the provisions of § 8-3(g), a zoning commission's review of a site plan application has been described as ministerial. Allied Plywood, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 2 Conn.App. 506, 512, 480 A.2d 584, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 808, 483 A.2d 612 (1984). Although a zoning commission's review of a site plan application may be characterized as narrow and ministerial, when the plan is submitted with a special permit application, the specifics of the proposal will also be reviewed under the zoning regulations governing special permits.
While it is true no site plan had been submitted, it must be concluded that such a plan could have been prepared in compliance with the code and there is a strong probability that it would have been approved. General Statutes § 8-3 (g); Allied Plywood Inc. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 2 Conn. App. 506, 512, 480 A.2d 584, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 868, 483 A.2d 612 (1984); Lynch v. West Hartford, supra, 167 Conn. 74. Aside from the zoning regulations and environmental requirements, no other possible legal impediments to Russo's plan were presented. The only environmental problem appears to have been asbestos removal.
Furthermore, in reviewing site plans, the PZC has "no independent discretion beyond determining whether the plan complies with the appropriate regulation. . . ." Allied Plywood, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 2 Conn. App. 506, 512, 480 A.2d 584 (1984), cert. denied 194 Conn. 808, CT Page 875 483 A.2d 612 (1984). The decision of the PZC must be sustained if any reasons given for it are valid. Goldberg v. Zoning Commission, supra, 26. The trial court may not substitute its judgment for that of the PZC. Frito Lay, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 206 Conn. 554, 572, 538 A.2d 1039 (1988).