With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.W.2d 790, 799 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1986, writ ref d n.r.e.). The Board’s findings and conclusions only cite one reason for granting Redland nonconforming rights — the preexisting leases. But Redland argued two alternative theories before the Board — actual, preexisting use and the diminishing asset doctrine. Redland argues that under Murmur, we must uphold the Board’s decision if there is evidence from which the Board could have granted nonconforming rights based on the latter two grounds, even though the Board only cited the preexisting leases in its findings and conclusions. We rejected this argument on original submission and held instead that we may affirm on a ground not cited by the Board only if we conclude that ground applies as a matter of law. See Flores, 860 S.W.2d at 626 (<HOLDING>). In their motions for rehearing, Redland and

A: holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress
B: holding that court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency
C: holding that reviewing court should accord deference to special masters decision and may not substitute its own judgment for that of the special master
D: holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board
D.