With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Oil modified its plans the director recommended approval of the use. In the meantime, neighboring property owners filed a petition to downzone the subject and other property “in order that no retail activity (including convenience stores) be allowed____” 451 N.W.2d at 704. The planning commission voted to delay action on Whitehead Oil’s application pending the request for rezoning. Nevertheless, when the council mandated that the commission forward its recommendation on the application, it did so recommending that the permit be approved because it met the requirements of the existing regulation. The council and the planning director, however, further delayed action on the application “in order ‘to allow the change of zone ... to proceed through the 25 Wis.2d 1, 130 N.W.2d 304 (1964) (<HOLDING>). See also Medical Servs., Inc. v. City of

A: holding that where applicant had satisfied all ordinance requirements commissioners could not deny permit simply in their discretion
B: holding unconstitutional ordinance that gave executive director excessive discretion in deciding whether the grant of a permit would be detrimental to the public
C: holding that it would be inequitable to allow a town to deny a permit based on a new ordinance after the property owner was denied a permit three times and brought suit to determine the validity of the prior ordinance
D: holding certain plaintiffs did not have standing to attack ordinance governing sexually oriented businesses where the record did not reveal that any one of these plaintiffs was subject to the ordinance even though the city attorney conceded at oral argument before the supreme court that one or two of them had had their licenses denied under the ordinance
C.