With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". failure to identify its standard of review and the lens through which it applies its judicial scrutiny perhaps explains its conclusions. In oy a presumption in favor of constitutionality, the Florida Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that zoning restrictions must be upheld unless they bear no substantial relation to legitimate societal policies or it can be clearly shown that the regulation is a mere arbitrary exercise of the municipality’s police power. See Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Moorman, 664 So.2d 930, 933 (Fla.1995) (“[W]e have repeatedly held that zoning restrictions must be upheld unless they bear no substantial relationship to legitimate societal policies.”); Harrell's Candy Kitchen, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth., 111 So.2d 439, 443 (Fla.1959) (<HOLDING>); City of Coral Gables v. Wood, 305 So.2d 261,

A: holding that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances
B: holding that zoning regulations are presumptively valid and the burden is upon him who attacks such regulation to carry the extraordinary burden of both alleging and proving that it is unreasonable and bears no substantial relation to public health safety morals or general welfare
C: holding defendant bears the burden of proving an accord and satisfaction defense
D: holding that the burden is on the plaintiff
B.