Ohio Residential Property Disclosures

In Ohio, sellers must disclose all known, material, and latent defects, regardless of legal exemptions or "as-is" clauses, to avoid claims of fraudulent nondisclosure.  Defects and certain other information concealed by a seller, which are neither obvious nor publicly available to a buyer, are potential justification for fraudulent charges.

In Butler Township, Ohio, if there was no change in applicable zoning regulations since “acquisition of the property”, there is no legal/constitutional justification for a zoning variance for an isolated landlocked property.  Ohio courts, as well as the Butler Township Zoning Resolution, indicate property acquired with zoning restrictions already in place is a self-created hardship; meaning there is no unconstitutional taking in zoning regulations prohibiting new land use.  Reference: Consolidated Management, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 6 Ohio St.3d 238, 452 N.E.2d 1287, 6 OBR 307 (Ohio 1983) and https://butlertownship.com/services/zoning-department/

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DISCLOSURE FORM

“Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 5302.30(K), if this form is not provided to you prior to the time you enter into a purchase contract for the property, you may rescind the purchase contract...”

Reference:

https://com.ohio.gov/divisions-and-programs/real-estate-and-professional-licensing/salespersons-and-brokers/transaction-forms-and-disclosures/residential-property-disclosure-form 

Observations by Narrows Farm LLC, which may or may not apply to any and/or all its leased properties, and/or property landlocked within:

1. Water Supply

   1. Public water supply is not present.

2. Sewer System

   1. Public sewer access is not present.

3. HAZMAT

   1. Sodium pentobarbital and formaldehyde are potentially in groundwater from prior pet cemetery operations.

   2. PFAS is potentially in groundwater being down river from Dayton Airport per Butler Township and Ohio EPA.

   3. 50 pCi/L radon level detected at 6350 Frederick Pike per current owner occupant.  Radon levels are unknown at other properties.  Per two prior owner occupants of 6340 Frederick Pike, the two most recent previous owner occupants of 6340 Frederick Pike were diagnosed with lung cancer; one died.  

4. Drainage/Erosion

   1. Snow on the driveway hill going down to Frederick Pike and the Stillwater River frequently conceals ice and prevents stopping and access, including by emergency services.  The single lane shared driveway access is on a slope in a ravine (“narrow”) with drainage issues contributing to a history of vehicle collisions, including hydroplaning, leading to a human death per a prior owner occupant.  Freezing over the driveway and across Frederick Pike into the Stillwater River is common.  There is a failed drainage system under the driveway.  Ditches and culverts also frequently clog/overflow and freeze over the driveway.  A recorded access agreement is in place to split costs of maintenance.

5. Zoning/code issues

   1. In 2012, the landlocked 5-acre parcel was isolated by a corporate developer purchase at a foreclosure auction from prior common ownership with public road frontage.

      1. Reference: https://go.mcohio.org/applications/recorderrealestate/mcrealestate_interface.cfm?instrumentid=201200043526&idx=DEE

      2. A development plan across the 10-acre parcel and landlocked 5-acre parcel is on file Butler Township showing common ownership prior to 2012.

   2. Most relevant to zoning issues: in 2023, the isolated landlocked 5-acre parcel transferred from corporate ownership to a family trust.  The 2023 deed states, “Subject to … zoning ordinances,”

      1. Reference: https://go.mcohio.org/applications/recorderrealestate/mcrealestate_interface.cfm?instrumentid=202300064399&idx=DEE 

      2. This is now common language to protect a seller and title office from a buyer, who, for a hypothetical example, may have believed bought a buildable lot when the parcel is not.  Regardless of other promises and expectations, this language in the deed documents the current owner’s acknowledgement and acceptance of “zoning ordinances” in place at the time of agreement (2023+ in this case).

      3. A corporation is recognized as a separate legal entity in court, where it appears the corporation may have gifted the landlocked 5-acre parcel to a family trust for $0 in December 2023, given no public listing or sale price was found by Narrows Farm LLC (subject to verification).  $0 is in line with the typical usable value of an isolated landlocked parcel.  It is likely an Ohio court would rule 2023 or a later acquisition date as the earliest date zoning regulations may be grandfathered to apply, also noting Butler Township zoning regulations do not allow any grandfathering use of isolated landlocked parcels, as explained below.  Any use proposal may therefore need to be led by a court order declaring zoning regulations unconstitutional (taking), and/or otherwise proposing a change in zoning regulations.

   3. ORC § 519.19 “Effective: October 1, 1953” states,

      1. “if any such nonconforming use is voluntarily discontinued for two years or more, any future use of said land shall be in conformity…” https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-519.19 

      2. Whereas, according to observations of the surrounding landowner occupant and public records, the landlocked 5-acre parcel has not been inhabited for approximately 50 years or more and (as of writing this) has not contributed to recorded shared driveway maintenance for at least 12 years, demonstrating no use through multiple recent acquisitions.  This indicates potential lack of justification for Ohio courts to favor an ‘unconstitutional taking’ claim against the township prohibiting any new use: if no use exists and no use was ever legally promised to current ownership, nothing was taken in prohibiting any new use.  Further, Ohio courts and the Butler Township Zoning Resolution explicitly recognize self-created hardships and avoid catering to them at the expense of others as explained below.

   4. Butler Township Zoning is without legal authority to grant a variance for any isolated landlocked parcel.  Granting a variance due to lack of “public roadway” “frontage” is consistently prohibited throughout Butler Township Zoning language.

      1. The Butler Township Zoning Resolution (2017) states,

         1. “LOT means a parcel of land defined by metes and bounds or boundary lines in a recorded deed or on a recorded plat, either fronting on a legally dedicated public thoroughfare or existing as part of a planned or condominium project approved by the Planning Commission.”

            1. The township’s definition of “lot” excludes parcels without “public” road frontage unless otherwise approved as stated.

               1. Likewise when “lot” is used throughout the Zoning Resolution (296 times), public road frontage is frequently required, 

               2. while “parcel” (used 16 times) never used alone requires public road frontage.

         2. “ZONING LOT means a single tract of land which, at the time of the filing for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance, is designated by its owner or developer as a tract to be used, developed or built upon as a unit under single ownership or control. Therefore, a “zoning lot” may or may not coincide with a lot of record. The zoning lot shall have adequate frontage on an improved public roadway of adequate width, or upon a private roadway approved as part of an approved Planned Development.”

            1. To be a “zoning lot”, “public roadway” “frontage” or other stated approval is also required.

         3. “VARIANCE means a variation from a strict interpretation of the provisions of these Zoning Regulations, owing to peculiar conditions or circumstances which apply principally to the property in question and to no other. As used in these Zoning Regulations, a variance is authorized only for height, area, yard or set-back requirements.”

            1. A “variance” has limited applicability. 

            2. “area” could potentially refer to ‘frontage area’, but as used by the Butler Township Zoning Resolution, ‘frontage area’ would be a contradiction of terms.

               1. The Zoning Resolution does not once use the term ‘frontage area’, while:

                  1. “Lot Frontage” as a one-dimensional value (feet)

                  2. “Lot Area” as a two-dimensional value (square feet)

               2. It appears “area” was intended by the Butler Township Zoning Resolution to refer to “Lot Area”, and potentially other two-dimensional spaces.

               3. The term “frontage” is used 59 times throughout the Zoning Resolution in a similar manner as “height, area, yard or set-back requirements”, while specifically excluded by definition from when “a variance is authorized”.

         4. If the township took nothing, the township owes nothing.  Butler Township also only authorizes limited grandfathering as stated above, and only as far back as “the time of purchase”, as the Resolution also states, explained below.  Absent a change in applicable regulations since “the time of purchase”, Butler Township’s limitation is consistent with state and federal laws, because nothing was taken from the current owner to justify a variance.  

            1. Regarding self-created hardships, Section 304.J states: 

               1. “Financial hardships are not a valid reason for requesting a variance.”

               2. Ohio courts likewise consistently prohibit granting a variance for a property owner to financially benefit [at the expense of others]. 

                  1. Reference: Duncan v. Middlefield, 23 Ohio St.3d 83, 491 N.E.2d 692 (1986), State ex rel. Pitz v. Columbus, 56 Ohio App.3d 37, and Bayliff v. Stokes Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2024-Ohio-4709

               3. The additional cost to buy a legal zoning lot for a personally desired proposed use (with sufficient “public” road frontage in a different location) is a self-created hardship, meaning neither the fault of government nor neighborhood.

            2. Section 304.J then states,

               1. “No variance from the strict application of any provision of this Zoning Resolution shall be granted by the Board, unless it finds that all of the following facts and conditions exist:

…

3) Special conditions and circumstances are not the result of actions of the applicant, including acquisition of the property with the same zoning restrictions in place at the time of purchase.  

4) Granting the variance requested will provide the minimum necessary relief to the applicant.  

5) Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Zoning Resolution, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.”

3. In providing “minimum necessary relief”, as evidence, there is an open cash offer for fair market value to then purchase a more appropriate property.

4. Further 100% of the surrounding property is supported by a state and federally recognized 501(c)(3) public charity which has been and would again be negatively impacted by an unrelated use landlocked in the middle.

5. Reference: https://butlertownship.com/services/zoning-department/

2. The Zoning Variance Application (2023) states,

   1. 1. “1) show boundaries of the zoning lot;”

         1. The application specifically requires a “zoning lot” which is also consistent with the Zoning Resolution limitations of variance applicability.

      2. Reference: https://butlertownship.com/services/zoning-department/zoning-permits/

3. Falsely claiming another’s public road frontage in an attempt to secure a variance or building permit is illegal per ORC § 2921.13(A)(5).  An access easement is legally required and typical for isolated landlocked parcels, not a unique exception for zoning or courts to consider as justification to override zoning regulations.  Another’s public road frontage onto which an easement for access may extend is still land owned by another.  Further, allowing distances and/or parts of other parcels to be double counted beyond parcel boundaries would set a precedent that could allow otherwise prohibited development anywhere, negating the intent of zoning authority.

4. Recent example (July 2025) from another Ohio Township (given lack of recent local applicants for isolated landlocked use):

   1. 1. “Variance to allow development on a lot with no street frontage …7.64 acres … contained no public street frontage but did have an easement agreement for access… There was some discussion regarding the private, narrow, roadway existing… MOTION DENIED”

      2. Reference: https://www.cityofwch.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_07162025-853 

5. Isolated landlocked parcels lack typical legal roadside trash service, may be lacking legal access to other utilities and services, and tend to restrict access of government emergency response, such as by the fire department.

   1. ORC 3734 states dumping on another’s property may be charged as a felony.

6. Proposed assessments

   1. The original deed (1928) for the landlocked 5-acre parcel, refers to the owner of the landlocked 5-acre parcel as, “Edwin Best Bosler, his heirs and assigns forever”, indicating access easement rights and associated obligations, including for “all expenses of maintenance and building said roadway to be born equally by grantors and grantee”, stay with the parcel “forever”.

      1. The cemetery has not received reimbursement for driveway maintenance from the landlocked 5-acre parcel.

      2. For cost estimating going forward: 

         1. Montgomery County recommended the shared driveway servicing the subject properties width be increased to a minimum of 22 feet wide without curb and gutter, per county standards for rural streets (reference: Butler Township development plan for the 5- and 10-acre parcels).  The driveway also needs to be built and maintained to handle the size and weight of a fire truck and potentially private trash service if said use were authorized.

         2. Driveway lighting failed.

7. Shared Driveway

   1. Various shared driveway easements recorded over time (although all are not necessarily legal as complete permission was not found for some easements), with surrounding properties include approximately 0.85 acres out of the 5-acre parcel, which also subtracts from approximately 90% of the perimeter of the 5-acre parcel.

   2. A shared driveway agreement was recorded to allow the landlocked 5-acre parcel existence, providing access through the surrounding 30 acres (the cemetery).  The recorded shared driveway agreement states, as originally spelled,

      1. “to be used in common by Grantor [cemetery] agree to reserve a 15 foot strip of Ground on north side of said 5 acre tract and likewise dedicate a 15 foot strip off the south side of his 20 acre tract [main parcel for cemetery] which will be adjacent to said First 15 foot strip left open for road purposes so both grantors [cemetery] and grantee [landlocked 5-acre parcel] may have egress and ingress to said tracts; all expenses of maintainence and building said roadway to be borne equally by grantors [cemetery] and grantee [landlocked 5-acre parcel] herein.”

      2. Reference: Montgomery County Recorder, book 625, page 329, instrument number 6451, Recorded June 5, 1928 (scan of original agreement included below)

   3. The shared driveway originated in 1928 to provide road access for the landlocked 5 acres so it may legally exist.  This was after the start of the Narrows Pet Cemetery in April 1926, which was prior to this a farm with three recorded parcels in common ownership.

   4. Additional shared driveway easements potentially exist on the 5-acre parcel for shared benefit with a 10-acre property, which includes a 20-foot-wide driveway easement along and within the entire north edge of the 5 acres, a 40-foot-wide driveway easement within the east corner of the 5 acres.  There was also a 10-foot-wide access driveway easement recorded along and within the south edge of the 5 acres and 10-foot from the north edge of the 10 acres from Frederick Pike to “level ground”; Narrows Farm LLC, however, did not find sufficient documented permission for the later 10-foot-wide easements, and it appears a driveway was never constructed there, while a driveway has been constructed and continued to remain on the other recorded easements mentioned.

8. Encroachments

   1. It appears the physical shared driveway encroaches beyond legal driveway easements onto 6330 and 6350 Frederick Pike properties, whereas as much as the entire width of the paved driveway is physically outside the legal easement before reaching landlocked parcels.

   2. The primary structure at 6340 Frederick Pike encroaches into the shared driveway easement as well as utility easements.

9. Other Material Defects

   1. Ruins exist from prior driveway and structure on the landlocked 5-acre parcel last used approximately 50 years ago per neighborhood permit records.

Other Related Information

10. Animal incineration chemical and particulate emissions limits were largely eliminated in 2023 per OAC § 3745-31-03(B)(1)(rrr).  The Ohio EPA exempts permits for incineration of 600lbs/hr of animal remains per incinerator.  

11. The cemetery is deed restricted as a pet cemetery in compliance with ORC § 961, which, by definition, includes appurtenant uses.  The Narrows Pet Cemetery also preexists state laws regulating pet cemeteries, and has continued to remain in existence, with public roadway and private river frontage, since 1926.

12. The cemetery is zoned RR, in which a “Funeral home” is a “Principal Permitted Use”.

13. Due to previous issues with landlocked parcel residents through multiple ownership, anyone involved with landlocked properties is no longer welcome on cemetery property beyond the right of way.  If a vehicle is left on cemetery property or blocking a driveway easement, the vehicle may be towed without further warning.  Contact Sandy’s Towing at 1-800-762-4357 to retrieve your vehicle.

14. Landlocked properties have zero river and zero pond access.  

15. Agricultural fences are energized with 7,000 volts, as authorized by ORC § 3781.1011(C)(6).

16. Video surveillance, PA system, and intrusion alarm sirens are in use for agricultural security purposes.

17. ORC 2923.162: “(A) No person shall … (1) … discharge a firearm upon or over a cemetery or within one hundred yards of a cemetery;”

Sources: mcrealestate.org, mcrecorder.org, pro.mcohio.org 

Sample video evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFxzHeF1Vb0