With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Preliminary Plan was nearly identical to the defective Sketch Plan submitted to the Township in September of 1996. The Board argues that it should not be required to give Sehul-theis numerous “bites at the apple,” which the trial court’s order demands. Clearly, the issues raised by the Board would evade appellate review if we were to deny immediate appeal. After Schultheis is provided an opportunity to revise his plan and the Board reviews that plan on remand, the only issues that would be appealable would be those relating to the Board’s review of Schultheis’ revised preliminary plan. Thus, whether Schultheis’ February 27, 1997 Preliminary Plan was complete would evade review. See Marchionni v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 715 A.2d 559 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (<HOLDING>); Lewis v. School District of Philadelphia, 690

A: holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue
B: holding that this court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a trial court order which remanded the case so that a new hearing examiner could be appointed and a new hearing conducted where the appellant raised the issue of commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions during the original hearing
C: holding that the trial court need not hold a voluntariness hearing where the defendant did not object and no evidence presented raised the issue
D: holding that portion of interlocutory order requiring a new hearing rather than basing decision on the proceedings before the hearing officer was appealable but that the employees due process claims regarding reinstatement and back pay could be addressed on appeal from a final order
B.