When a town renders a decision, it shall identify those specific public interests that it seeks to protect by the decision; Subparas. (B), (C) and (D) of Subdiv. (1) require the same defendant's burden as Subpara. (A), namely, to establish that decision and reasons cited therein are supported by sufficient evidence in the record; court's function in an appeal is to apply the scope of judicial review as expressed in Subparas. (A), (B), (C) and (D) to the pertinent determinations made by zoning commission; Subpara. (A) states the general scope of review, drawn from traditional zoning principles, that applies to Subparas. (B), (C) and (D); each of the Subparas. in Subdiv. (1) embodies the “sufficient evidence” standard; judicial review must be based on the zoning record returned to the court, not on the basis of a trial de novo; need for affordable housing is determined by the need for such housing in the local community, not by regional or statewide housing needs. 249 C. 566. Legislature intended that commission bear burden of proving that the public interest cannot be protected by reasonable changes to applicant's proposed development and such burden is not inconsistent with Sec. 22a-19. 256 C. 674. Statute requires board to make a collective statement of its reasons on the record when it denies an affordable housing land use application, including a denial based on the industrial zone exemption. 259 C. 675. Application of legal standards set forth in Subsec. is mixed question of law and fact subject to plenary review by court and the court is not limited to review of commission decision to determine if supported by sufficient evidence. 271 C. 1. Trial court's remand order to defendant zoning commission was not an appealable final judgment in a matter where remand order