With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Environmental Court, and while that appeal was pending, submitted a second application to the town for a variance to reduce the width of the necessary right-of-way to twenty feet. The DRB denied the application for a variance, and the Van Nostrands appealed this ruling to the Environmental Court, which consolidated the two appeals for review and decision. ¶ 5. In January 2006, the court issued a written decision on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. At the outset, the corad observed that issuance of the subdivision permit to the Van Nostrands’ predeeessors-in-interest in 2000 clearly did not create a vested right to obtain a zoning permit under the regulations in effect when the permit was granted. See In re Taft Corners Assocs., 171 Vt. 135, 144, 758 A.2d 804, 811 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The court went on, however, to conclude that

A: holding that the doctrine of incorporation by reference permits the court to consider documents on a motion to dismiss that are crucial or essential to the plaintiffs claims
B: recognizing that the constitution permits some imprecision in the apportionment of income to a particular state
C: holding that reid permits the district court either to take supplemental evidence or to return the case to the hearing officer
D: holding that the balance of competing policy interests militate against giving holders of subdivision permits vested rights to zoning permits under the zoning ordinance applicable when the subdivision permit was sought or obtained
D.