Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
authorized to assert the mandatory injunction against defendants as they, according to plaintiff’s complaint, were the persons authorized and responsible for the land-disturbing activity. Accordingly, under the statute, the relief plaintiff was seeking did not require the inclusion of any other party besides defendants. That, however, does not end our inquiry. “ ‘The term “necessary parties” embraces all persons who have or claim material interests in the subject matter of a controversy, which interests will be directly affected by an adjudication of the controversy.’ ” Wall v. Sneed, 13 N.C. App. 719, 724, 187 S.E.2d 454, 457 (1972) (emphasis added) (citation omitted in original). In the instant case, it is undisputed that the subject matter of the controv , 611 S.E.2d 463, 465 (2005) . We therefore conclude that, the current
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the property owners testimony alone placed the value of the stolen property above the amount necessary to constitute grand larceny
B. holding that all property owners affected by a residential use permit are necessary parties
C. holding that speculation about occurrence of future event ordinarily does not render all parties potentially affected by that future event necessary or indispensable parties
D. holding that the amendment was a use regulation which was in effect a condition on the use of property in the affected zone
E. holding that the doctrine of strict liability applies where an owner of residential property brought a claim against the owners of a gasoline station immediately adjacent to a private residence after gasoline leaked into the property owners well
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.