With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the newly rezoned residential area. Additionally, neither party has furnished the applications, if any, for exceptions or variances, and/or the rulings regarding any such application. Both parties agree that the comprehensive rezoning by its terms as applied to the subject property prohibits the desired use. 5 . Much of our discussion, infra, refers to that branch of "taking” law arising from regulation of uses as opposed to "actual physical takings.” Justice Marshall in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3175, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982), described an actual physical taking as: Such an appropriation is perhaps the most serious form of invasion of an owner’s property interests____ [T|he government does not simply take t. 246, 72 L.Ed. 568 (1928) (<HOLDING>); Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590,

A: holding that an ordinance requiring cedar tree farmers to cut down a number of their trees to prevent the spread of an infectious disease to apple orchards was valid on the grounds that one class of property had a greater value to the public than the other
B: holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff
C: holding that testimony by the owners expert to the value of trees on appropriated property was properly admitted to rebut or impeach testimony by the appropriating agencys expert that the trees had no value in terms of their effect on the propertys market value
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
A.