as to their propriety. SECTIONS 8-11 AND 8-12 OF THE CITY’S ZONING CODE BEAR A SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE The City asserts that the ordinances in question are a valid exercise of the City’s police power because the ordinances seek to preserve the integrity of the residential areas and the unique aesthetic qualities of the City. Kuvin admits that a zoning ordinance may regulate or limit the use of property on behalf of the general welfare of its citizens and he recognizes that unless the City’s exercise of its police powers is clearly shown to be unreasonable, arbitrary, and without a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, the ordinance must be upheld. See Fox v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 450 So.2d 559, 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (<HOLDING>). Kuvin’s argument is that, while the
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged holding that ordinance conferred unbridled discretion where issuance of permit was subject to broad findings that proposed use will not have a harmful effect upon the health or welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the aesthetic quality of the community or the surrounding land uses holding that ordinance which generally promotes public welfare is unreasonable and unconstitutional as applied to landowners property holding that the burden of overcoming a zoning ordinances presumption of validity is satisfied when it is shown that the ordinance does not bear a substantial relation to the public health safety morals or general welfare