With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Environ mental Protection and Resource Management.” 10 . As to the facial takings claim, Greenspr-ing's own complaint suggests a third possibility. While the Ordinance apparently precludes it from building the two office buildings (one five stories, one six stories) and garage envisioned in its first site plan, its complaint asserts that it is entitled on the face of Section 2 of the Ordinance to build an eight story office building with garage in the footprint of the current improvements. 11 . Despite the fact that the denial of a Section 2 exemption would constitute a quasi judicial act, the more relaxed standard enunciated in Dolan does not govern the determination of whether Greenspring has been deprived of the economic use of its property. See 512 U.S. at 384-85, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court held that the requirement

A: holding that relative to the threat that she posed physically separating tina cortez from her telephone taking her by the arm  escorting her from her home taking the keys to her home and locking the door and  placing her in the locked back seat of a patrol car was excessive force as well as an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment
B: holding that the city effectuated unconstitutional taking by prohibiting plaintiff from doubling the size of her retail store unless she deeded over a portion of her property to it
C: holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment
D: holding that a claim was for a tax refund where the plaintiff alleged that her employer withheld its own portion of fica taxes from her paychecks
B.