With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". inference that appellee’s delay in compliance -with that order was not a coincidence; it was a calculation designed to delay appellant until the use became prohibited. The County’s need to delay appellant was necessitated by the inherent length of time required to process the (SMA) for the larger geographical area. It would appear that only through the comprehensive rezoning process could the County accomplish a downzoning without the property owner’s consent. We hold, therefore, that especially egregious actions of public officials in stalling the issuance of permits in order to eliminate development by downzoning may create a zoning estoppel as to particular properties. In the case at bar, the allegations as to appellee’s actions in t 2-73, 100 S.Ct. 383, 389, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 48,

A: holding that landowner was entitled to compensation because the condemnation destroyed all reasonable access to remainder property
B: holding that the government could not require a landowner who improved his marina so that it fell within the definition of a navigable water to grant the public access without compensation
C: holding that the land under navigable waters was not granted by the constitution to the united states but was reserved to the states respectively and that new states have the same rights jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil under navigable water as the original states
D: holding that where by virtue of state action access is limited but remains reasonable there is no such denial of access as entitles the landowner to compensation
B.