Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of wrongful manipulation of the WSSC by either the Council or the Planning Commission. 281 Md. at 21-22, 376 A.2d 505. The court held that the dedication to the public of the property valued at $800,000 did not create any vested rights. 281 Md. at 23, 376 A.2d 505. The court’s rationale was that there was no evidence that TKU had been guaranteed a permit to redevelop and that no valid promises by appropriate officials had been made to the developer. The court concluded: [I]n order to obtain a vested zoning status, there must be cons 6 Md. 117, 125-26, 291 A.2d 672 (1972); City of Hagerstown v. Long Meadow Shopping Ctr., 264 Md. 481, 494-96, 287 A.2d 242 (1972); Mayor of Baltimore v. Shapiro, 187 Md. 623, 624, 51 A.2d 273 (1947); Lipsitz v. Parr, 164 Md. 222, 228, 164 A. 743 (1933) ; County Comm’rs v. Arundel Corp., 82 Md.App.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is well settled that there is no constitutional right to an appeal
B. holding that it is not
C. holding that if precise issue is not clear in statute reviewing court must not simply impose its own construction but must determine whether agencys construction is permissible
D. holding a defendant is not vested with a right to be absent from trial
E. holding that even if construction commences but it is based on an illegally issued permit no vested right is created
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.