County, Development Analysis Plan Map and Policies. (i) Whether there has been a convincing demonstration that the proposed rezoning would be appropriate and logical for the subject property. Issues 1 and 2: The joint public hearing in this case and the appropriateness of a remand Appellants contend that the County Commissioners’ decision cannot properly be sustained because, at the January 13, 2003 joint public hearing, all of the “testimony” presented in favor of the application was “unsworn.” It follows, appellants argue, that the evidence presented at the joint public hearing “may not be considered” in determining whether the County Commissioners’ decision is supported by substantial ; Templeton v. County Council of Prince George’s County, 21 Md.App. 636, 645, 321 A.2d 778 (1974) (<HOLDING>); cf. Anne Arundel County v. Nes, 163 Md.App.
holding appellant could not complain of jurys failure to answer question because the charge instructed the jury not to do so based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction holding appellant could not obtain a new trial so that jury could answer liability question because the charge instructed the jury not to answer the question based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction holding that plaintiff could not present his erisa estoppel claim to the district court because he did not properly exhaust it before the administrative review board holding that because the appellant did not present a question before a hearing examiner or district council the question was not properly before this court holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court