[brief] Site suitability discovery is ongoing, and the Special Adjudicator must evaluate the parties submissions, meet with the parties, and advise the Court as to whether Plaintiff is entitled to a builder’s remedy.  In issuing its July 8, 2024 Order, the trial court merely maintained the status quo until a determination can be made regarding the suitability of the property.  The preliminary injunction issued here preserved the subject matter of Plaintiff’s builder’s remedy litigation -- the Property on which Plaintiff proposes an inclusionary housing development in a municipality that has shirked its Third Round Mount Laurel obligation.  The Mount Laurel doctrine is clear that Plaintiff is the standard bearer for the protected class of New Jersey citizens in need of affordable housing, and that a builder’s remedy litigation is very much a public interest matter.  [...] does not dispute that its third-round affordable housing deficit is at least 602 units.  Importantly, the Third Round began in 2000, and the Supreme Court in 2015 established the declaratory judgment process designed to bring municipalities into compliance -- almost 10 years ago -- and [...] is no closer to satisfying its constitutional obligation.  See Mount Laurel IV.  In granting preliminary restraints, this Court was clearly concerned with the large, unmet deficiency in [...]’s affordable housing obligation, [...]’s lack of immunity due to its voluntary withdrawal from its own declaratory judgment action, and the Township’s clear intent to move down the path of condemnation and redevelopment in connection with the Property -- even after Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this matter.  Simply put, if the Property is condemned, Plaintiff’s builder’s remedy claim would be placed in jeopardy and the Property faces the threat of removal as a site on which to develop inclusionary housing in a town with a 602 affordable unit shortfall.  Such a result makes zero sense and would serve to eviscerate the Mount Laurel doctrine.  For that reason alone, the trial court’s injunction should stand because it maintains the status quo by preserving the very subject matter of Plaintiff’s builder’s remedy Complaint.  As the trial court recognized, there is no precedent upholding the condemnation of a potential affordable housing site which “involve a municipality that has been found to be not constitutionally complaint for the current round and where you have a developer who is ready, willing and able to come forward with development that will include affordable housing. ” (1T52:4-8).  No matter how this Court reviews the Crowe factors, which are nonetheless satisfied, at the very minimum this matter presents a situation where the trial court was justified to enter restraints to simply maintain the status quo by protecting the eligibility of the Property for an inclusionary development -- the very subject matter of Plaintiff’s builder’s remedy action -- so this matter may proceed to conclusion.  When taking all of the foregoing into consideration, the Court rightfully maintained the status quo and preserved the Property, the very subject matter of this builder’s remedy action in which [...] has been deemed significantly noncompliant.  The trial court’s injunction should be affirmed.