shared in common with all citizens. E.C. Yokley, 4 Zoning Law and Practice § 24-3 at 194 (4th ed.1979) (footnote omitted). Hoke, 865 P.2d at 628. [¶25] We have decided a number of cases involving questions of standing in zoning and/or land use actions. In Hoke, 865 P.2d at 628, we determined that Mr. Moyer had standing to contest the Teton County Board of County Commissioners' decision allowing a higher density zoning category for a subdivision adjacent to his property. We said that doubling the density on the adjacent property raised "a number of perceptible harms for a property owner which are different than the harm to the general public, such as increased traffic and congestion." Id. See also Hirschfield v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of County of Teton, 944 P.2d 1139, 1143 (Wyo.1997) (<HOLDING>). In Northfork, the litigants, who lived on
holding that the amendment was inapplicable to the plaintiffs land during the freeze period because it effectively rezoned the land to prohibit multifamily housing completely holding landowners had standing to challenge an agency decision which would have the effect of doubling the housing density previously allowed on adjoining land holding that subsequent property owners were bound by prior owners agreement to restrict building density and preserve certain portions of land as a condition of the original zoning approval holding that secretarys decision not to challenge the sufficiency of the appellees exhaustion was in effect a determination that the agency had rendered a final decision within the meaning of  405g holding that a party who had demonstrated an injury sufficient to confer standing to appeal from an agency decision could raise  any relevant question of law in respect of the order of the agency