Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
available utilities and absence of nearby off-site amenities also contributed to his conclusion of the inappropriateness of this site for Mount Laurel II development. Distance from water and sewerage connections, or lack of frontage on a public street, or location in the conservation area individually is not enough to preclude the granting of a compliance remedy. However, the High Debi Hills tract is a full mile away from the nearest existing water and sewer point of connection. The method of access over the 500 foot distance separating the tract from Campgaw Road is uncertain. And, most importantly, Court ordered Mount Laurel II development should be located in growth areas, not conservation districts. See Orgo Farms and Greenhouses v. Colts Neck Tp., 192 N.J.Super. 599 (Law Div.1983) . Here, substantial compliance can be achieved
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it may be decided as a matter of law
B. recognizing that what is a reasonable area is a factual matter to be determined in each noncompete case
C. holding that a matter of law that is assumed but not discussed is not authoritative
D. holding that the availability of the icrp is but one factor to be considered in determining undue hardship but it is not determinative
E. holding availability of a builders remedy in a limited growth area is not foreclosed as a matter of law but will be sparingly granted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.