[brief] This is an action in lieu of prerogative writ brought to invalidate a long-term tax exemption granted to the developer of an inclusionary housing development in [...].  The developer is [...], which is fully owned by [...], which is fully owned by [...].  (“[...]”) Pa 352.  The exemption was granted by the [...] on February 22, 2022, after a public hearing, by adoption of Ordinance 22-1766 titled “Ordinance of the Township of Hopewell, County of Mercer, State of New Jersey, Approving the Application of and the Execution of Financial Agreement with U.S. Home at Hopewell PARC Urban Renewal, LLC” [the “Ordinance”].  Pa 649.  Plaintiffs are [...], [...], and [...] Mayor and resident [...] and [...] resident and Mayor [...].  [“Plaintiffs”]  Plaintiffs timely filed the Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative Writ on March 17, 2022.  Pa 138  The Complaint named [...], (“Township”), individual Township Committee members, and [...] and affiliated fictitious entities as Defendants.  On May 6, 2022 in response to a motion by the Township, the individual Committee members were dismissed by consent order.  Pa 266.  The three-count Complaint sought declaratory relief that the Ordinance was invalid as arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and in violation of law because the exemption did not comply with the justification required by the Long Term Tax Exemption Law (LTTEL), N.J.S.A. 20-1, et seq., and was adopted for improper purposes, including shifting a significant tax burden to plaintiff Boroughs.  After a case management conference, the parties propounded discovery requests.  Pa 213, 203.  Co-defendants Hopewell and [...] moved to suppress Plaintiffs’ requests on the grounds that they sought propriety information and information protected by the deliberative process privilege.  Pa 182; 185; 197; 200.  On July 28, 2022, [...] ([...]) filed an unopposed motion to intervene on behalf of defendants.  Pa 252.  In support of the need for discovery, Plaintiffs submitted a detailed Certification by [...], an expert in real estate finance and development, questioning the adequacy of the factual support for the exemption.  Pa 239  On September 12, 2022, following argument, the Trial Court ruled for defendants and entered an “Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 4:10-3”, Pa 30, and an Order admitting [...] as amicus curiae.  The Court found discovery not warranted because in its view there was no disputed factual issue because the Ordinance and its Financial Agreement findings were sufficient under LTTEL.  Pa 58.  After briefing accompanied by supplemental Certifications, a merits trial was held on May 1, 2023 consisting entirely of arguments by counsel.  The Court ruled for defendants and entered an Order Dismissing the Complaint With Prejudice, along with a supporting opinion.  Pa 1.  Relying on the presumption of validity that attaches to municipal ordinances, the Court reiterated its view that the Ordinance satisfied the requirements of the LTTEL and required no evidentiary backup.  It discounted Certifications by plaintiffs’ experts as of no weight and it found that, whether or not shifting the school tax burden might have been a purpose, the Ordinance was nevertheless valid because it had the proper purpose of providing for affordable housing.  Pa 114, 116.  Plaintiffs timely filed this appeal on July 23, 2023.  STATEMENT OF FACTS