Comments

Summertime, and the Livin’ is Easy. — 2 Comments

  1. The only real difference between Moore and Clifton is that, in Moore, the property was being used for its end purpose – residential. In Clifton, the property was undeveloped. Under the standing analysis it announced in Clifton, however, I don’t know that is a significant point. I agree, the Court did not like what happened in Moore. I don’t recall if there was anything about the prior zoning of the property which might lend itself to some sort of cognizable expectancy.

    • Andy,
      As I wrote, I think the Court is struggling to distinguish the standing issue in the two cases. But the majority in the Clifton did say this in its conclusion section-“However, we emphasize that we do not hold that an adjoining property owner may never have standing. Instead, we hold that a property owner lacks standing under the facts and circumstances presented here.”
      MBB