With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". allows the development of substandard lots-in-common as long as they are unplatted; thus, section 602.02 is irreconcilable with rule 6105.0380, subp. 2, which prohibits development on all substandard lots-in-common. “[W]hen an ordinance conflicts with a well-established law of the state the ordinance must yield and the statute prevail.” City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511, 520, 16 N.W.2d 779, 784 (1944). Because section 602.02 permits what rule 6105.0380, subp. 2, forbids, thereby violating Minn.Stat. § 103F.351, subd. 4(c), we hold section 602.02 invalid to the extent that it permits the development of a substandard lot that is adjacent to another lot that was under common ownership after May 1,1974, without a variance. See Buss v. Johnson, 624 N.W.2d 781, 784-85 (Minn. App.2001) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that section 602.02 must be read

A: holding that a county ordinance conflicted with state laws and was invalid as applied to all citizens
B: holding seniorhousing zoning ordinance invalid as applied
C: holding that a municipal ordinance that contravenes state law as here is invalid for that reason alone
D: holding an ordinance invalid to the extent that it permits what a statute restricts
D.