[brief] The Appellate Brief by Plaintiff, [...] (“Township” or “Plaintiff”), opens with an ad hominem attack alleging Defendant [...] and [...], defendant in the companion case under Docket No. [...] (collectively, “Defendants”), have made “many false and misleading statements. ”  Despite Plaintiff’s inflammatory language, it fails to cite to any part of the record to support this baseless claim.  It is undisputed that the alleged “open space” acquisition was initially premised on a single line in the authorizing ordinance that states the taking is “for the purpose of open space. ”  There were not at that time – or any time since – any public hearings, studies, reports or public comments cited by the Township to support the stated purpose.  Only after Defendants filed their opposition to the taking did Plaintiff adopt a subsequent ordinance that acknowledged the real need for Defendants’ properties to facilitate the land swap with a private developer [...] (“Developer”).  While that Ordinance cites to the preservation of open space, it again fails to cite to the basis for the conclusion, purported need and planned use of land as “open space. ”  It is also undisputed that the contract with the Developer does not require the Township to take Plaintiffs’ properties.  Nor does the contract limit the Developer’s use of the property to be acquired under the swap, that would include Defendants’ parcels.  The Township states the Developer will build dormitories for religious schools, which, it argues, is a permitted use.  However, the Township fails to cite to any provision in the code to support its assertion.  Yet Defendants included the applicable zoning ordinance in their appendix and such use is not permitted in the subject zoning district.  Not only is there no record cited by the Township in initiating this condemnation action, but Plaintiff’s brief goes well beyond the record before the trial court in its appellate brief.  Plaintiff makes several arguments as to an alleged “public benefit” including recreation, environmental preservation, economic benefits and easing traffic congestion.  However, these supposed findings were not cited by the Township in any ordinance and not presented to the trial court below.  The Township suggests also that there was significant community engagement in the process, but there is no such record of any meetings, hearings or public comment.  Nor was there any evidence of this public input presented to the trial court.  Indeed, the Township does not cite to page in the appendices filed with this Court.  The trial court denied Defendants’ request for an evidentiary hearing in their right to take challenge.  As such, that court had before it only the barren record comprised of the ordinances.  It is that record alone that is before this Court.  Plaintiff also impermissibly seeks to inject in this challenge to the authority to take the issue of just compensation.  That the Township has acknowledged its obligation to pay constitutionally mandated just compensation has no bearing this appeal.  Likewise, that the Township has complied with the procedural requirements of the Eminent Domain Act is of no moment here.  The only issue is whether the Township has demonstrated a valid public use for the taking of Defendants’ private property.  It has not, and as such the trial court’s orders appointing condemnation commissioners and authorizing Plaintiff to take Defendants’ properties must be reversed.