Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
between the two.” Fortress Bible, 694 F.3d at 219. Among the .types of burdens the courts have found to be minimal, and hence not protected by RLUIPA, are facially neutral permit and variance requirements. Thus, courts have regularly found that zoning ordinances that merely require religious institutions to go through a routine permit or variance application process do not run afoul of RLUIPA.. See, e.g., id. (“A denial of a religious institution’s building application is likely not a substantial burden if "it leaves open the possibility of modification and resubmission.”); Konikov v. Orange Cty., 410 F.3d 1317, 1323 (11th Cir.2005) (“[Requiring applications for- variances, special permits, or other relief provisions [does] not offend RLUÍPA’s goals.”); San Jose, 360 F.3d at 1035-36 "; Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a citys requirement that the plaintiff refile a complete permit application did not constitute a substantial burden
B. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff
C. holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim
D. recognizing burden
E. holding that such factors may constitute a substantial burden
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.