(concurring in result). I agree with the result reached by the majority and Justice WEAVER, but write separately to acknowledge my change in position since this Court decided Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm’rs, 464 Mich 726; 629 NW2d 900 (2001). In that case, I signed Justice KELLY’s dissent, which agreed with the majority’s adoption of Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555; 112 S Ct 2130; 119 L Ed 2d 351 *676(1992), as the test for standing in this state. I now disavow that position for the reasons expressed in Justice WEAVER’S opinion in Lee, as well as her concurrence in this case. Lujan should not be used to determine standing in this state.
Thus, I concur with the result reached by the majority and the reasoning espoused by Justice WEAVER.