With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on the ground; merely to allege large expenditures without actual construction on the site cannot vest zoning rights. 281 Md. at 23, 376 A.2d 505 (citations omitted). See also Prince George’s County v. Sunrise Dev. Ltd. Partnership, 330 Md. 297, 623 A.2d 1296 (1993) (finding no vesting where minor construction commenced) ; Board of County Comm’rs v. Pritchard, 312 Md. 522, 529, 540 A.2d 1139 (1988); O’Donnell v. Bassler, 289 Md. 501, 508, 425 A.2d 1003 (1981); County Council v. Carl M. Freeman Assocs., 281 Md. 70, 79-80, 376 A.2d 860 (1977); Mayor of Baltimore v. Crane, 277 Md. 198, 206, 352 A.2d 786 (1976); County Council v. District Land Corp., 274 Md. 691, 707, 337 A.2d 712 (1975); Marathon Builders, Inc. v. Montgomery County Planning Bd., 246 Md. 187, 195, 227 A2d 755 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Rockville Fuel and Feed Co. v. Gaithersburg,

A: holding innocent purchaser contention was without merit where appellant argued it should not be subject to rezoning classification
B: holding rezoning is at least fairly debatable where the evidence on traffic was conflicting
C: holding that issues not argued are abandoned
D: holding that an appellant forfeits all issues not raised and argued in initial brief on appeal
A.