In this decision, the Commonwealth Court determined that a home purchaser, not in direct privity with the original home builder, may assert claims for fraud and claims under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”).
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
In this decision, the Commonwealth Court determined that a home purchaser, not in direct privity with the original home builder, may assert claims for fraud and claims under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”).
In this case out of Adams County, the Commonwealth Court was presented with a question regarding whether a zoning hearing board (“ZHB”) can deny an application for zoning relief based on a provision that was not raised, or incorrectly cited, by the zoning officer in his initial denial. In finding that the ZHB could make such a finding, the court supported its determination by citing to the fact that the issue had been raised at the zoning hearing and the applicant had been given an opportunity to address the issue and supplement the record prior to its close.
This case deals with the question of whether the common law merger of lots doctrine is applicable when a local governing body has not adopted a merger of lots provision in its zoning ordinance. The Commonwealth Court found that this doctrine has no application absent a merger of lots provision in the local zoning ordinance because it is a creature of local ordinance, not common law.