With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Vol.), Art. 25A, § 5(U), as Harford County has done, the General Assembly has specifically mandated in § 5(U) that the administrative remedy before the board of appeals, with judicial review of the board’s decision, “shall be exclusive.” This Court has consistently held that, where there exists a remedy before a chartered county’s board of appeals under Art. 25A, § 5(U), “a party aggrieved ... in that county must appeal to that county’s board of appeals and may not [go] directly to the circuit court.” Hope v. Baltimore County, 288 Md. 656, 657-658, 421 A.2d 576, 577 (1980) (invalidating a local ordinance which authorized an action in the circuit court without exhausting the remedy before the board of appeals). See Klein v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 285 Md. 76, 83, 400 A.2d 768, 772 (1979) (<HOLDING>). See also Agrarian, Inc. v. Zoning Inspector,

A: holding that an associations president who was not a party before the board of appeals was not entitled to appeal the boards decision granting a zoning application that his association had opposed in the board proceedings
B: holding that the harford county board of appeals was established pursuant to art 25a  5u and that a decision by the board is a prerequisite to resort to the circuit court the court further held that a harford county ordinance authorizing a party to bypass the board of appeals was ultra vires and in conflict with   5u
C: holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board
D: holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings
B.