Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 206 Conn. 554, 572-73 (1988); Parks v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 178 Conn. 657, 663 (1979). A zoning authority must be able to amend its regulations whenever the circumstances or conditions reasonably indicate the need for change. First Hartford Realty Corp. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 165 Conn. 533, 544 (1973). A zoning authority, in enacting or amending its regulations, acts in a legislative and not an administrative capacity, vesting in its broad discretion.

"`The courts allow zoning authorities this discretion in determining the public need and the means of meeting it, because the local authority lives close to the circumstances and conditions which create the problem and shape the solution.'" First Hartford Realty, Corp. v. Plan and Zoning Commission, 165 Conn. 533, 540 (1973) quoting Cameo Park Homes, Inc. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 150 Conn. 672, 677 (1963). ZONE CHANGES

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the commission acted illegally or arbitrarily. First Hartford Realty Corp. v. PZC, 165 Conn. 533, 540-41 (1973). Scope of Commission's Authority

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the commission acted illegally or arbitrarily. First Hartford Realty Corp. v. PZC, 165 Conn. 533, 540-41 (1973). Scope of Commission's Authority

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the commission acted illegally or arbitrarily. First Hartford Realty Corp. v. PZC, 165 Conn. 533, 540-41 (1973). Scope of Commission's Authority

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) First Hartford Realty Corp. v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 165 Conn. 533, 541 n.1, 338 A.2d 490 (1973). Elsewhere, our Supreme Court has further described the zoning police powers as those that, inter alia, advance the "prosperity of the community ...."

A zoning commission has broad discretion when it acts within its prescribed legislative powers. First Hartford Realty Corporation v. Planning Zoning Commission, 165 Conn. 533, 540 (1973). The question on appeal is not whether the court would have reached the same conclusion as the agency, but whether the record before the commission supports the decision reached.

Burnham v. Planning Zoning Commission, 189 Conn. 261, 266, 455 A.2d 339 (1983). "Within these broad parameters, `[t]he test of the action of the commission is twofold: (1) The zone change must be in accord with a comprehensive plan, General Statutes § 8-2, . . . and (2) it must be reasonably related to the normal police power purposes enumerated in § 8-2 . . .' First Hartford Realty Corporation v. Plan Zoning Commission, 165 Conn. 533, 541, 338 A.2d 490 (1973)." Protect Hamden, supra 220 Conn. at 544.

It is black-letter law that a zone change must pass a two-part test. One, the zone change must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and, two, it must be reasonably related to the normal police powers enumerated in Connecticut General Statutes 8-2. First Hartford Realty Corp. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 165 Conn. 533 (1973). A "comprehensive plan" means a general plan to control and direct use and development of property in a municipality or a large part thereof by dividing into districts according to present and potential uses of the property.

A trial court cannot weigh the evidence or the credibility of witnesses or substitute its own judgment for that of the zoning authority; it must determine if there is a basis in the record for the decision of the authority. Cf. First Hartford Realty Corporation v. Plan Zoning Commission, 165 Conn. 533, 543 (1973). As the Burnham court said, "courts must not disturb the decision of a zoning commission unless the party aggrieved by that decision establishes that the commission acted arbitrarily or illegally" 189 Conn. at page 265.