With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was properly enacted within the Board’s power, the restriction is unenforceable for failure to reasonably relate to the health, happiness and enjoyment of the unit owners.” Appellees proceeded at the circuit court level on the theory that the bylaw amendment was a use restriction that, although properly promulgated in accordance with the Condominium declaration and bylaws, was “unreasonable” in that it unfairly burdened the first-floor commercial owners. Although our review of the record convinces us that this case actually concerns an access restriction that has diluted appellees’ respective percentage interests in the Condominium lobby, we shall limit our review to the use-restriction theory presented by the parties. See County Council v. Offen, 334 Md. 499, 509, 639 A.2d 1070 (1994) (<HOLDING>). I. The Condominium is considered a unique

A: holding that a reviewing court will not address those issues not raised below or not addressed by the trial court
B: recognizing general rule that an appellate court cannot address claims that were not raised below
C: recognizing the general rule that an appellate court will not address matters that were not raised or decided in the trial court  
D: holding that appellate court will not normally address issue raised for the first time on appeal
C.