[brief] This is especially true where the trial court has already determined that the Township is in significant violation of its third-round constitutional obligation to provide its fair share of affordable housing by at least 602 units.  The Mount Laurel doctrine imposes a constitutional obligation on municipalities to create a realistic opportunity for their fair share of affordable housing.  For that obligation to have meaning, our Supreme Court has consistently recognized for decades that a strong judicial hand and the imposition of broad equitable remedies would be required.  The “teeth” of the Mount Laurel doctrine takes the form of a builder’s remedy -- a necessary tool to not only bring violating towns into compliance, but to result in the actual development of inclusionary housing for those families in need.  As a builder’s remedy plaintiff which has proven [...]’s substantial noncompliance, plaintiff [...] ("Plaintiff") stands in the shoes of a protected class of individuals who have been deprived of affordable housing in [...].  Every day that passes without the construction of much needed affordable housing constitutes irreparable harm to the region’s low and moderate income households.  In this appeal, [...] takes the position that it may condemn the subject builder’s remedy site for a commercial project.  [...] takes this position even after it abandoned its prior effort to achieve voluntary compliance and knowingly relinquished its immunity from inclusionary zoning lawsuits.  If this Court accepts [...]’s position, then the Court will be creating a huge disincentive to any property owner or developer to even consider filing a builder’s remedy claim, thereby weakening over 40 years of Mount Laurel precedent.  The trial court recognized this when it enjoined [...] from taking any further steps towards condemnation or redevelopment.  Notably, the trial court emphasized that injunctive relief was warranted due to the degree of the Township’s noncompliance after it relinquished its right to “drive the bus” by choosing to dismiss its prior voluntary compliance efforts.  [...] incorrectly alleges that the trial court made “new law. ”  To be clear, the trial court took into consideration the specific facts of this matter, including [...]’s significant compliance deficiency, the benefit of the much-needed inclusionary housing outweighing the Township’s desired commercial development, and any potential harm that the condemnation process would have not necessarily on Plaintiff, but on the protected class Plaintiff represents.  [...]’s legal argument is inherently flawed because it analyzes its eminent domain and redevelopment powers in a vacuum and fails to engage in the balancing test required for the adjudication of an application for injunctive relief and the purposes of the builder’s remedy to enforce the Mount Laurel doctrine.  The Township glosses over its significant noncompliance and fails to address the extreme adverse consequences the specter of condemnation under the present circumstances has on long-established Mount Laurel precedent.  Furthermore, [...] wrongfully assumes that its designation of the subject builder’s remedy site as an “area in need of redevelopment” for condemnation purposes was proper.  [...] fell woefully short of demonstrating that the property qualified as an “area in need,” which Plaintiff demonstrated to the Township in excruciating detail.  Plainly, the irreparable harm to builder’s remedy plaintiffs and the protected class is real, Plaintiff is likely to prevail on its claims for a builder’s remedy and challenge to the redevelopment designation for the property, and [...]’s substantial constitutional violation heavily tips the balance of hardships in Plaintiff’s favor.  This was repeatedly recognized by the trial court in barring [...] from proceeding with its condemnation and redevelopment efforts.  The trial court’s granting of injunctive relief should be affirmed.