With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". especially in regard to the petition for a writ of mandamus that kept appellant from acquiring a vested right under existing zoning, if believed by the trier of fact, may estop appellee from applying the downzoning to deny the issuance of a building permit for the subject property. As the trial judge relied exclusively on “vesting” theories and did not determine whether the facts supported a zoning estoppel, we shall remand this case to him for a further hearing, if necessary, and for a finding as to whether the facts, many of which he accepted in his opinion, are sufficient to estop the County from denying the issuance of a permit under the zoning as it was in 1988. We note that our holding does not invalidate the co 58 U.S. 419, 421, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3168, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164,

A: holding that new yorks law requiring landlords to allow television cable companies to place cable facilities in their apartment buildings constituted a taking even though the facilities occupied at most only vk cubic feet of the landlords property
B: holding that a new york law requiring building owners to permit cable companies to install cable facilities on their premises constituted a taking
C: holding that a new york law which required a landlord to permit a cable television company to install its cable facilities on his property was a taking
D: holding that the physical occupation caused by the mandatory installation of cable television equipment was a compensable taking
C.