The Circuit Court ordered the two actions consolidated since they raised the same issue. It later dismissed both actions, holding that County Council acted reasonably and within its sound discretion in rezoning the subject property as C-1. Our Supreme Court stated in Rushing v. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 283, 217 S.E.2d 797, 799 (1975), that the action of a municipality regarding the rezoning of property will not be overturned by a court if the municipality's decision is "fairly debatable." This is because the municipality's action is presumed to have been validly exercised and because it is not the court's prerogative to pass upon the wisdom of the municipality's decision.

More specifically, "The Court will not overturn the action of the City if the decision is fairly debatable because the City's action is presumed to have been a valid exercise of power and it is not the prerogative of the Court to pass upon the wisdom of the decision." Rushing v. City of Greenville , 265 S.C. 285, 288, 217 S.E.2d 797, 799 (1975) ; see alsoRush , 246 S.C. at 276, 143 S.E.2d at 531 (explaining the Court must exercise "carefully and cautiously" its power to declare a challenged ordinance invalid on the basis that the ordinance unreasonably impaired or destroyed a constitutional right).

We cannot insinuate our judgment into a review of the City's decision. Rather, we must leave the City's decision undisturbed if the propriety of that decision is even "fairly debatable." Rushing v. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 288, 217 S.E.2d 797, 799 (1975); Hampton v. Richland County, 292 S.C. 500, 503, 357 S.E.2d 463, 465 (Ct.App. 1987), cert. denied, 296 S.C. 72, 370 S.E.2d 714 (1988). Zoning is a legislative act which will not be interfered with by the courts unless there is a clear violation of citizen's constitutional rights.

The legislative body's decision in zoning matters is presumptively valid, and the property owner has the burden of proving to the contrary. Rushing v. City ofGreenville, 265 S.C. 285, 288, 217 S.E.2d 797, 799 (1975). The authority of a municipality to enact zoning ordinances that restrict the use of privately owned property is founded in the municipality's police power. Rush v. City ofGreenville, 246 S.C. 268, 276, 143 S.E.2d 527, 530-31 (1965).

); Georgetown County Dep't of Social Servs. v.Phipps, 278 S.C. 64, 292 S.E.2d 184 (1982) (where our supreme court remanded a custody case for a trial de novo because considerable time had passed since the decision awarding custody had been made and the record had become stale); Dorn v. Criddle, 306 S.C. 189, 410 S.E.2d 590 (Ct.App. 1991) (termination of parental rights case remanded for trial de novo where three years had passed since the appealed order was issued). SeeRushing v. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 217 S.E.2d 797 (1975). In Rushing, our supreme court affirmed a circuit court decision which reversed the City's denial of requests to rezone property on Augusta Street to allow commercial use of the property.

The court ordered the matter remanded to the Council with instructions that Bear's request to change the zoning from R-S to R-MHP be granted "in accordance with the South Carolina Constitution, the United States Constitution, the laws of the State of South Carolina and the Zoning Ordinance of Greenville County." Relying on Rushing v. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 217 S.E.2d 797 (1975), the court denied the County's motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the County argues the trial court erred in finding the Council's decision to deny Bear's rezoning request amounted to a taking of property in violation of Bear's constitutional rights.

The decision of the legislative body is presumptively valid, and the property owner bears the burden of proving otherwise. SeeRushing v. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 217 S.E.2d 797 (1975); Rush v. City of Greenville, 246 S.C. 268, 143 S.E.2d 527 (1965). The governing bodies of municipalities clothed with authority to determine residential and industrial districts are better qualified by their knowledge of the situation to act upon such matters than are the courts and they will not be interfered with unless there is a plain violation of the constitutional rights of citizens.

Riverland Place is near both single family and multi-family housing areas. Because DeStefano's property also involved a sizeable amount of acreage and had a known drainage problem, it was neither arbitrary nor capricious, but a fairly debatable decision, to rezone to SR-4. Rushing v. City ofGreenville, 265 S.C. 285, 217 S.E.2d 797 (1975) (holding the actions of a municipality will not be overturned if the government decision was "fairly debatable," but will do so only if the action was so unreasonable as to impair or destroy constitutional rights). Moreover, rezoning was consistent with DeStefano's request for the twenty-six-lot plat for single family residential construction.

This Court will not overturn the decision of a zoning authority unless the decision is not fairly debatable. Rushingv. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 217 S.E.2d 797 (1975). A decision is not fairly debatable if it is so unreasonable as to impair or destroy a Constitutional right.

Accordingly, "[t]he Court will not overturn the action of [county council] if the decision is fairly debateable because the [county's] action is presumed to have been a valid exercise of power and it is not the prerogative of the Court to pass upon the wisdom of the decision." Rushing v. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 288, 217 S.E.2d 797, 799 (1975); Lenardis v. City ofGreenville, 316 S.C. 471, 472, 450 S.E.2d 597, 598 (Ct.App. 1994). Turning to the facts of this case, we believe County Council's decision to adopt Ordinance No. 1300 was "fairly debatable" and did not constitute an action that was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unjust.