[brief] PRELIMINARY STATEMENT  Defendant-Appellants, [...] (the “Township”) and Mayor [...], in his official capacity as Mayor of the Township (the “Mayor”) (collectively referred to as “Appellants”) appeal the trial courts order of October 15, 2020 improperly overturning the denial of the Respondents’ use variance application by the [...] (the “Board”), as well as the trial courts’ orders of October 14, 2020, June 16, 2021, September 14, 2021, and August 9, 2022, which compounded upon the initial improper decision by the trial court.  The reversal of the Board’s decision was coupled with the inappropriate appointment of a Special Hearing Officer (“SHO”) and Special Master; and ultimately, the adoption of the SHO’s resolution granting the Respondents’ preliminary and final site plan.  From the onset, the trial court misapplied the law and used contradictory findings as a means to an end: to wrest away the Board’s powers and turn them over to a SHO without any legal or factual supporting basis.  The trial court paid no attention to the Appellants’ continued objections to the utility or appropriateness of a SHO.  The trial court used spurious reasoning to appoint an SHO to oversee the matter.  Contrary to caselaw, the trial court did not find a record of obstruction and hostility to an affordable housing developer and/or the court in order to appoint a SHO.  Instead, the trial court appointed an SHO while finding the exact opposite:  The irony here is that, but for this singular transgression of the Zoning Board that was inescapably provoked, in material part, by the Mayor’s interference, Monroe Township pro-actively had come into voluntary compliance with its Mt. Laurel obligations on the immediate coattails of Mt. Laurel IV and earned the Court’s entry of the 2016 Judgment of Compliance; and, by all accounts, is diligently implementing them.  Therefore, wresting back wholesale control of the Township’s delegated zoning powers, as the Township’s attorneys argued at trial, and this Court agrees, would be a “bridge too far” - for now, at least, for a municipality that to date has taken commendable steps to come into voluntary compliance with its Third Round affordable housing obligations and is actually implementing them.  M51-52\(^1\).  (Emphasis added).  From this twist in logic, the SHO’s decision to grant preliminary and final site plan approvals was borne.  The trial court fashioned this extraordinary remedy out of a tortured interpretation of First Amendment protected comments made by the Mayor; and ancillary to the Board’s hearing on the merits.  This “one-off” event, if it can even qualify as one, was characterized as so egregious it warranted specialized Mt. Laurel remedies.  Further, the trial court failed to appreciate the significance of, and the Appellants objections to, the court’s improvident decision to grant Respondents’ variances in the October 15, 2020 Order.  In so doing, the trial court laid the groundwork for an “as of right” application for preliminary and final site plan --- \(^1\) “M” denotes the appendix for the [...] and Mayor [...]. approval that merely required the SHO to check the boxes before granting Respondents’ application.  The trial court’s adoption was a rubber-stamped approval of a flawed procedure put in place by itself.  Without any sufficient basis to appoint an SHO, the acceptance of that same SHO’s recommendations was equally as flawed.  The only appropriate remedy now is for this Court to reverse all of those decisions that created this unsuitable result.  **STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY**