[brief] The Trial Court rightfully answered both of these inquiries in the affirmative, its findings are entitled to deference by the Appellate Division, and its rulings should be affirmed on appeal.  Appellants/Plaintiffs, [...] (individually “Board”) and [...] (individually “Township”) (collectively “Township Defendants”) share historic company with perhaps only three other municipalities—out of hundreds—to have their temporary immunity from exclusionary zoning/builder’s remedy litigation revoked.  The Township Defendants’ duplicative appeals not only seek an unfair result, but also legal acquiescence for their *ultra vires*, unconstitutional, and bad faith conduct.  Defendant/Respondent, [...]  (“[...]”) simply seeks to hold the Township Defendants accountable to the terms of the settlement agreement they entered with [...] and unambiguous black letter law, neither of which permit the Township Defendants to engage in the conduct at issue here.  [...] is the owner of certain property with an established right to construct a 473-unit inclusionary development in the Township.  On November 10, 2020, due to the Township Defendants’ well-documented bad faith conduct, violation of prior Court orders, and ongoing intransigence, the Trial Court entered an Order invalidating the Township Defendants’ immunity from builder’s remedy actions.  This action yielded near immediate results as, on January 8, 2021, [...] and the Township Defendants entered into a settlement agreement—which was later approved by the Trial Court—containing clear timelines, obligations, and remedies, which the Township Defendants are essentially now asking this Court to remake.  The settlement agreement mandates that the Township Defendants cooperate and use commercially reasonable efforts to assist [...], to not impose unnecessary cost-generative development standards and features, and, as it specifically concerns the Board, to expedite its review of [...]’s site plan application and to issue a written resolution memorializing its decision on the application within 30 days or by the second meeting following the Board’s decision.  [...]’s application was approved by the Board on June 13, 2022 and, at that time, there was no condition of approval requiring an elevator in Building “E. ”  The Board, after a six-month period during which it refused to memorialize the resolution of approval, finally did so on December 12, 2022.  This resolution specifically indicated that an elevator in Building “E” was neither required nor a condition of approval.  On January 23, 2023, the Board then, *sua sponte* and without notice to [...], the public, and long after the hearing record was closed and [...]’s application was approved, adopted a supplemental resolution which mandated the installation of an elevator in Building “E”.  This not only constitutes the precise unnecessary cost-generative development standards and features prohibited under the settlement agreement, but also a lack of cooperation, substantial delay, bad faith misconduct, and clear violation of the Municipal Land Use Law.  Two different Trial Court judges separately determined that this *ultra vires* and bad faith conduct by the Township Defendants constituted a clear breach of their contractual and constitutional Mt. Laurel settlement agreements with [...], and fashioned a reasonable remedy that reflects both the Municipal Land Use Law and the specific penalties the Township Defendants agreed to in the settlement agreement with [...].  We respectfully submit that the Trial Court’s orders of August 8, 2023 and December 19, 2023 must be affirmed in their entirety; otherwise recalcitrant municipalities will continue to skirt their constitutional Mt. Laurel obligations.