With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ill. App. 3d 701, 711 (1997). Examples of quasi-judicial acts include granting or denying a variance (Willowbrook Development Corp. v. Pollution Control Board, 92 Ill. App. 3d 1074, 1082 (1981)) and reviewing an Agency decision to grant or deny a permit (Environmental Protection Agency v. Pollution Control Board, 118 Ill. App. 3d 772, 777 (1983)). A reviewing court will uphold a quasi-judicial determination unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Willowbrook, 92 Ill. App. 3d at 1082. When a case involves both quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, the reviewing court should apply both standards of review. Environmental Protection Agency, 86 Ill. 2d at 402; see also City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191, 204-05 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Both the Agency and the Board recommend that

A: recognizing that mixed questions of fact and law that are essentially factual in nature should be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard as opposed to the generally administered de novo standard
B: holding that when an administrative agencys decision was a mixed question of fact and law a reviewing court should apply a clearly erroneous standard of review
C: holding that even though the court does not usually apply the clearly erroneous standard to mixed questions of fact and law this standard is properly applied to the materiality issue
D: holding that whether the defendants confession was voluntary was a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review
B.