Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the entire state over the parochial interests of individual municipalities. 2 . In his concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Baer appears to translate the common-law maxim of sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas into a federal constitutional duty, on the part of local municipalities, to protect property owners from the use of neighboring properties in ways that are undesirable to them. See Concurring Opinion, at 729-31, 734-37, 83 A.3d at 1002-03, 1005-06. The decisions referenced in the concurrence, however, generally concern the boundaries of the police power to establish zoning regulations restricting the ability of landowners to do as they wish with their own properties. See, e.g., Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395, 47 S.Ct. 114, 121, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926) ; City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a zoning ordinance impinging upon a landowners desired use of his property does not offend substantive due process norms so long as the regulation is not clearly arbitrary and unreasonable having no substantial relation to the public health safety morals or general welfare
B. recognizing privilege for adjoining landowners defamatory statements about plaintiff to zoning board given landowners private interest in the protection of her property to advance
C. holding that allegations that the city arbitrarily applied a zoning ordinance were insufficient to state a substantive due process claim and stating in dicta that the decision would be the same even if the city had knowingly enforced the invalid zoning ordinance in bad faith a badfaith violation of state law remains only a violation of state law
D. holding that discretion of zoning board was not sufficiently circumscribed to support substantive due process claim
E. holding that where a zoning board had no authority under state law to take certain actions with respect to a protected property interest a trier of fact could conclude that there was no rational basis for the towns zoning boards actions and that as a result the zoning board violated appellants rights to substantive due process
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.