In Re Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed by Various, 141 A.3d 359

After COAH failed to adopt valid Third Round Rules, the NJ Supreme Court in In re N.J.A.C. 5:96 II allowed Mount Laurel litigation to proceed and directed designated judges to use prior methodologies as guidance.
Ocean County municipalities filed consolidated declaratory judgment actions to determine their third-round Mount Laurel obligations.
A Mount Laurel judge directed the Special Regional Master to calculate a distinct "gap-period" (1999–2015) affordable-housing obligation as a new, separate component of each municipality's third-round fair-share obligation.
The judge's order treated a municipality's third-round obligation as the sum of: unmet prior-round obligations (1987–1999), present need, prospective need, and a new separate retroactive gap-period obligation.
Municipalities and amicus groups appealed, arguing the FHA and Supreme Court guidance do not authorize a separate retroactive gap calculation; intervenors (including Fair Share) advanced alternative interpretations about how the gap should be treated.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding the FHA and In re N.J.A.C. 5:96 II do not permit courts to impose a new retrospective, "separate and discrete" gap-period obligation and that present and prospective need (and prior-round obligations) remain the proper framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether courts may impose a separate, retrospective "gap-period" (1999–2015) affordable-housing obligation in addition to prior-round unmet obligations, present need, and prospective need	Gap-period housing need exists and must be calculated separately (Special Regional Master / judge endorsed a distinct retrospective calculation)	FHA and Supreme Court guidance limit obligations to prior-round unmet obligations plus present and prospective need; prospective need is a forward projection, not retroactive	Reversed: FHA defines prospective need as a forward projection; courts may not create a new retrospective gap-period obligation—use prior-round obligations and present/prospective need methodologies instead

S. Burlington Cty. NAACP v. Twp. of Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. 151 (established Mount Laurel I remedial principle requiring municipalities to provide realistic opportunity for fair share housing)
S. Burlington Cty. NAACP v. Twp. of Mount Laurel, 92 N.J. 158 (Mount Laurel II) (framed judicial remedy and emphasized present and prospective need and realistic opportunity concept)
In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 and 5:97 by the N.J. Council on Affordable Hous., 215 N.J. 578 (Appellate Division remand history and FHA interpretation guidance)
In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96, 221 N.J. 1 (Supreme Court) (held COAH failed to adopt valid Third Round Rules, authorized court oversight using prior-round methodologies, and warned courts not to become a replacement agency)
In re Six Month Extension of N.J.A.C. 5:91 et seq., 372 N.J. Super. 61 (App. Div.) (earlier procedural decision during COAH delay; distinguished on facts)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (standard of review for legal questions)