Wyckoff has already won its own decade of protection from builder's remedy lawsuits — in which a developer can ask a court to override local zoning and approve denser housing than a town's rules allow, if the town hasn't met its affordable-housing obligations. A consent order signed in June, after months of special meetings and zoning changes, gave Wyckoff that protection, known as repose, through 2035. But at Tuesday's Township Committee meeting, Township Attorney David Becker told the committee Wyckoff is still part of a separate, ongoing legal fight over how the state wrote those rules in the first place.

Wyckoff is one of 27 municipalities the case's own docket lists as named plaintiffs — Becker described the group as "roughly 30" towns in his own remarks — joined together in what he called the Montvale-led consortium, after the Bergen County borough that organized it.[1][19] The group, formally known as Local Leaders for Responsible Planning,[2] has five cases still active in state and federal court, Becker said.[3]

Given that Wyckoff has already secured its own repose, Becker offered the committee two reasons to keep participating: a favorable ruling could affect how the state calculates the Fifth Round obligation — the next housing cycle, which he said "seems like it's far out there, but it'll be here before we know it" — and membership hasn't cost the township anything beyond its initial buy-in.[7] Legal briefing in most of the cases is finished, he said, and he expects at least some rulings this fall.[8]

One case is in federal court. Becker said he went down in January to hear oral argument; a federal district judge dismissed the suit for lack of standing, and the coalition has appealed.[4] That appeal is separate from a related emergency-relief fight over the state's March 15 compliance deadline, which the coalition has already lost at every level it's tried since: the Third Circuit denied a stay on Jan. 30,[20] and the U.S. Supreme Court — Justice Samuel Alito, acting as the circuit's emergency-applications justice — denied a follow-up application on Feb. 24.[21]

Four more cases are pending before the New Jersey Appellate Division. Two argue that the state didn't follow proper notice-and-timing procedures when it adopted its Fourth Round rules, and that municipalities themselves had no role in writing them — only the Fair Share Housing Center and other advocacy groups did, Becker said.[5] The other two ask the appellate court to review a trial judge's decision dismissing the towns' claims on all eight counts, on standing, constitutional, and Mount Laurel-doctrine grounds.[6]

Judge Zahid Quraishi's Jan. 20 opinion dismissed the entire case — not just the towns' claims, but those of the elected officials who joined as individual plaintiffs alongside them.[11] One of those officials is Committeeman Rudy Boonstra, Becker's own example and a plaintiff confirmed on the case's federal docket, in his then-capacity as Wyckoff's mayor.[9][10] Neither Becker's remarks nor the ruling itself spells out what grounds the pending appeal actually raises.

Boonstra raised a separate concern of his own: a bill reintroduced this year in the state Senate, after a similar measure failed to advance last session, that he said would impose "vast rezoning throughout our municipalities."[12] He didn't give a bill number, but the description matches S1786 — a statewide accessory-dwelling-unit mandate that state Sen. Troy Singleton, the same sponsor's name he used, reintroduced in January after its predecessor, S2347, died without a floor vote when the last session ended on Jan. 12.[22][23] He asked whether the Legislature has the constitutional authority to override local zoning that broadly. Becker called it an open legal question that will likely be the central fight if the bill advances.[13] Township Administrator Matt Cavallo added that the state League of Municipalities is looking at the issue too, and that the Legislature is on a scheduled break with no Senate sessions planned until late September or early October.[14]

Becker said he wished more towns had signed on to the coalition — only about 29 or 30 did, he said, calling that participation level "a shame."[15] Boonstra asked whether outreach could be made at the League of Municipalities' annual convention in November.[16] Cavallo said the reasoning he'd heard from towns that passed was that they could benefit from any court win without paying the roughly $20,000 buy-in themselves.[17]

"I would encourage all municipalities to join this because it's in all of their best interest," Mayor Lane said.[18]