Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
mineral estate, that the wells were not temporary in nature, and that they remained there for several years. Clearly, there was evidence of a physical occupation by the Government of the McKays’ property. In general, in the case of physical invasions, the Supreme Court has pointed out that “no matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation.” Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992). Even when the physical intrusion occupied less than one and one half cubic feet of space on a landowner’s property, the Supreme Court has held that a taking was effected. See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 425, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982) . Despite this undisputed evidence of a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. 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
C. holding that a new york law requiring building owners to permit cable companies to install cable facilities on their premises constituted a taking
D. holding that a new york state law requiring the owner of an apartment building to allow the installation of cable equipment on the building which amounted to a few wires and a small box on the roof constituted a taking
E. holding that new york law granting cable television companies right to place wires across private property worked a taking of private property
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.