With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". record was closed. Appellees’ responses characterized the October 22, 2003, meeting as a hearing and indicated that Appellant did agree on the record to its scheduling as such. The common pleas court denied relief after oral argument on a limited evidentia-ry record consisting of the transcripts of the September 30 and October 22 Board proceedings, adopting Appellees’ position that the October 22 meeting constituted a hearing. In this regard, the common pleas court relied on Hogan, Lepore & Hogan v. Pequea Township Zoning Board, 162 Pa.Cmwlth. 282, 638 A.2d 464 (1994), as support for the proposition that the concept of a hearing, for purposes of Section 908, is not limited to a proceeding in which a zoning hearing board receives substantive evidence. See id. at 289-90, 638 A.2d at 468 (<HOLDING>); see also Gaster v. Township of Nether

A: holding that probable cause hearing under wis stat  980092 was not intended to be an evidentiary hearing but rather a review of the paper record with argument allowed by counsel
B: holding that although the record of a zoning hearing was closed to further substantive evidence a later board meeting at which counsel offered oral argument constituted the final hearing for purposes of section 9089
C: holding that appearance at the scheduled hearing demonstrates actual notice of the hearing
D: holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived
B.