With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the trial court’s order granting Schultheis’ land use appeal and remanding the matter to the Board. Specifically, the Board argues that it correctly denied Schultheis’ Preliminary Plan application, pointing out that the application did not comport with the SLD Ordinance, that the application was incomplete and that critical data was not submitted timely. Further, the Board contends that these deficiencies were not minor technicalities but, rather, were substantive defects. The Board also argues that it acted in good faith in denying Schultheis’ Preliminary Plan because the Township provided Schultheis with notice of the defects five months prior to the filing of his Preliminary Plan, and seven months prior to the Board’s rejection of the Preliminary Plan; yet, .2d 814 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (<HOLDING>); Housing Authority of City of York v. Ismond,

A: holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment
B: 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
C: holding order granting a new trial is not a final appealable order because it does not terminate the action or any of the claims or parties in the action
D: holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable
B.