Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
County[, 387 Md. 52, 874 A.2d 470 (2005)]? (4) Whether the highly restricted Agricultural Zone area may be used for an S.M. facility, private driveway, and lot area for lots developed in the adjoining Rural-Residential Zone Area, where the Agricultural Zone itself would not permit that lot density? (5) Whether the Court of Special Appeals allowed the equivalent of a disguised rezoning or unauthorized density transfer (a.k.a. De facto rezoning of the property)? 20 . We focus, for the purposes of this opinion, primarily on the purposes and underlying reasons for establishment of the R.C. 2 and R.C. 5 zones. For a more extensive historical discussion of the Resource Conservation Zones in Baltimore County, see Security Mgmt. Corp. v. Baltimore County, 104 Md.App. 234, 655 A.2d 1326 , cert. denied, 339 Md. 643, 664 A.2d 886
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that extension of exclusive liability to project owners did not violate due process or equal protection rights of injured workers
B. holding that placement of property in baltimore countys rc4 resource conservation zone did not constitute a deprivation of the landowners constitutional rights to either equal protection or substantive due process
C. recognizing privilege for adjoining landowners defamatory statements about plaintiff to zoning board given landowners private interest in the protection of her property to advance
D. holding transfer eligibility rule did not deny the student equal protection of the laws or procedural or substantive due process under the fourteenth amendment
E. holding that florida statute did not constitute an unreasonable exercise of the states police power and rejecting due process and equal protection challenges
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.