The URL can be used to link to this page

Inspection Warrant 04/01/2026 (CESD20260001085) Colter County Growth Management Department Code Enforcement Division DATE: April 1, 2026 TO: Minutes & Records, Bldg F 4th Floor FROM: Helen Buchillon, Code Enforcement RE: Code Enforcement Granted Motion to Quash, Inspection Warrant and Affidavit Please find attached the warrant affidavit and exhibits issued by the Code Enforcement Department. I respectfully request that your office certify all documents contained herein and then forward the document, with this memo, to the Recording Department for official recording. Recording Department Instructions: Please record all documents contained herein as Granted Motion to Quash, Inspection Warrant and Affidavit return the originals to the Minutes and Records Department. Please send a statement of all recording fees to: Helen Buchillon Operations Support Specialist II Growth Management Department Collier County Code Enforcement 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 The Code Enforcement Cost Account is 111-138911-649030. Thank you all very much for your assistance. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at: 239-252-5892. ....,._..�. • ( . 741 Code Enforcement Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Florida 34104.239-252-2440•wvwcolhergov.net INSTR 6806234 OR 6571 PG 1545 RECORDED 4/6/2026 12:52 PM PAGES 8 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC $69.50 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, COLLIER COUNTY AFFIDAVIT FOR v. INSPECTION WARRANT 2355 Heritage Trail LLC,owner[s] of 2355 Heritage Trail,Naples FL, 34112 Collier County Florida. Code Case Number: CESD20260001085 AFFIDAVIT OF CRAIG COOPER IN HIS CAPACITY AS CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II FOR COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCMENT STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE ME, personally appeared Craig Cooper, Code Enforcement Officer II, known to me to be the person who personally executed this Affidavit and who, first being duly sworn, says under oath as follows: 1. My name is Craig Cooper. I have been employed by Collier County's Code Enforcement Division ("CED") for the past 3 Years. In my employment, I am charged with the inspection and investigation of potential violations of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances and the Land Development Code. On April 2nd of 2024, CED received a complaint forwarded from Collier County Commissioner's Office, alleging that the property located at 2355 Heritage Trail,Naples, FL, 34112 had prohibited land use violations including but not limited to "Home is alleged to be a halfway house or sober house facility. Please check to see if that is the use of the property, and if it is,that it has all required permits and/or licenses for this type of activity"(Exhibits A.1 —A.3). It was later determined by Zoning Manager Ray Bellows that group care facilities housing more than 6 individuals would require a Site Development Plan("SDP")and an approved conditional use through the county(Exhibits B.1 —B.3). Further research on this property while reviewing case CELU20240003149 revealed potentially unpermitted construction resulting in an additional case on the property. Case number CESD20260001085. During our research of the property, it is noted on the website,https://artoflivinghome.org/naples,that the property has two homes for women and one home for men, and a community barn(Exhibits C.1 —C.6). Research on the property shows one main dwelling structure, a guest house, one stable and storage area, and two garages (Exhibits D.1 —D.17). I, Craig Cooper, contacted the property/business owner by way of phone February 4th, 2026,requesting access to the property. That request was subsequently denied verbally and again later by email (Exhibits J.1 —J.3). There is no reason to believe that further requests for access will be successful without the issuance of an Inspection Warrant or similar court order. 2. Research revealed that the Property at 2355 Heritage Trail, Naples, FL, 34112 is owned by 2355 Heritage Trail LLC, according to the records of the Collier County Property Appraiser. The Folio for the property is 00402000006 (Exhibits E.1). In addition, there is a pattern of similar cases reported to the CED within the past five years on a separate property with common ownership/management. Case CESD20250000741 has previously been adjudicated by the special magistrate and found in violation for unpermitted alterations/structures (Exhibits F.1 — F.8). Further research via Sunbiz documents revealed common ownership/management shown to be Daniel Schmit (Exhibits G.1 — G.2 & H.1 — H.2). See attached recorded Finding of Fact showing violation found on property with common ownership(Exhibits I.1 —1.3). 3. Based on my experience, knowledge, and training, I reasonably believe that a condition of nonconformity may exist on the Property, as alleged in the complaint, and that such condition would constitute a violation of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances and/or the Land Development Code with respect to building, fire, safety, environmental, animal control, land use,plumbing, electrical, health, minimum housing, and/or zoning regulations. Therefore, as a Code Officer II with CED charged with investigating complaints and inspecting property to determine whether any applicable violations exist, my access to the Property is critical and necessary to performing my duties. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. Craig Cooper,Code O cer II STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF C'o//;Q r-- 4 The foregoing affidavit was acknowledged before me thisd3" day of[/YJwcle 2026], by Craig Cooper, Code Officer II with the Collier County Code Enforcement Department, who is [v]� personally known to me, or [] has produced a driver's license as identification. ;Oa& W ; NOTARY PUBLIC U (SEAL) Name: ro` r roa DANIELLE DIJAN * ( < * Commission#HH 749122 N>"OF FL'p° Expires December 14,2029 2 (Type or Print) My Commission Expires: 7 App e loiffo2 and lega sufficiency: frt., ,.j_dtriA4 • , �o Ronald Tomasko Assistant County Attorney 3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, COLLIER COUNTY v. INSPECTION WARRANT 2355 Heritage Trail LLC,owner[s] of 2355 Heritage Trail,Naples FL, 34112 Collier County Florida. Code Case Number: CESD20260001085 BEFORE ME, 1' -1 . , Judge of the Circuit Court in and for Collier County, Florida, personally appeared Code Enforcement Division ("CED") Code Officer II , Craig Cooper, who being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has cause to believe and does believe that a condition of non-conformity exists on the property more particularly described as: [2355 Heritage Trail,Naples, FL, 34112 ("the Property")] Interior and exterior of property and structures On April 2nd of 2024, CED received a complaint forwarded from Collier County Commissioner's Office, alleging that the property located at 2355 Heritage Trail, Naples, FL, 34112 had prohibited land use violations including but not limited to "Home is alleged to be a halfway house or sober house facility. Please check to see if that is the use of the property, and if it is, that it has all required permits and/or licenses for this type of activity" (Exhibits A.1 — A.3). It was later determined by Zoning Manager Ray Bellows that group care facilities housing more than 6 individuals would require a Site Development Plan ("SDP") and an approved conditional use through the county (Exhibits B.1 —B.3). Further research on this property while reviewing case CELU20240003149 revealed potentially unpermitted construction resulting in an additional case on the property. Case number CESD20260001085. During our research of the property, it is noted on the website, https://artoflivinghome.org/naples, that the property has two homes for women and one home for men, and a community barn (Exhibits C.1 —C.6). Research on the property shows one main dwelling structure, a guest house, one stable and storage area, and two garages (Exhibits D.1 —D.17). Research revealed that the Property at 2355 Heritage Trail, Naples, FL, 34112 is owned by 2355 Heritage Trail LLC, according to the records of the Collier County Property Appraiser. The Folio for the property is 00402000006 (Exhibits E.1). In addition, there is a pattern of similar cases reported to the CED within the past five years on a separate property with common ownership/management. Case CESD20250000741 has previously been adjudicated by the special magistrate and found in violation for unpermitted alterations/structures (Exhibits F.1 — F.8). Further research via Sunbiz documents revealed common ownership/management shown to be Daniel Schmit (Exhibits G.1 — G.2 & H.1 — H.2). See attached recorded Finding of Fact showing violation found on property with common ownership (Exhibits I.1 —1.3). I, Craig Cooper, contacted the property/business owner by way of phone February 4th, 2026, requesting access to the property. That request was subsequently denied verbally and again later by email (Exhibits J.1 — J.3). There is no reason to believe that further requests for access will be successful without the issuance of an Inspection Warrant or similar court order. This Inspection Warrant shall be effective for a period of fourteen(14)days from the date of its issuance unless extended or renewed by me upon being satisfied that such an extension or renewal is in the public interest. This Inspection Warrant must be executed and returned within the time specified or within the extended or renewal time period. After the expiration of such time, the Inspection Warrant. unless executed, is void. An inspection pursuant to this Inspection Warrant shall not be made between 6 p.m. of any day and 8 a.m. of the succeeding day; on Saturday, Sunday, or any legal holiday. An inspection pursuant to this inspection Warrant may be made in the absence of an owner or occupant over the age of 18 years of age specifically authorized upon a showing that such authority is reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the rule being enforced. This Inspection Warrant shall not be made by means of forced entry. Notice that this Inspection Warrant has been issued shall be given to the property owner at least 24 hours before the Inspection Warrant is executed. Immediate execution of this Inspection Warrant shall be prohibited. Any person who willfully refuses to permit an inspection authorized by a warrant pursuant to Chapter 933, Florida Statutes is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,punishable as provided in Section 775.082 or 775.083 of the Florida Statutes. THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT, BUILDING REVIEW AND PERMITTING DEPARTMENT, THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT, HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND COLLIER COUNTY SHERRIF'S OFFICE ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SEARCH, EXCEPTING THE ENTRY TO THE PROPERY. 2 FORTHWITH. THE PREMISES DESCRIBED AND NAMED ABOVE BEING SITUATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SERVING THIS INSPECTION WARRANT AND MAKING THE SEARCH OF THE PREMISES AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL THIScP1 DAY OF JUNE 2025 FUDGE Gtls&w A I , COLLIER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 3 IN TILE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN ANI) FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, COLLIER COUNTY, vs. Code Case No.:CESD 20260001085 2355 HERITAGE TRAIL LLC, owner[s] of 2355 HERITAGE TRAIL, NAPLES, FL 34112 COLLIER COUNTY, FL, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH INSPECTION WARRANT THIS CAUSE was brought before the Court on an Emergency Motion to Stay Execution and to Quash Inspection Warrant. The motion asserts that, "The warrant contains a material date discrepancy." Specifically, the affidavit was signed on March 23, 2026, and the date on the warrant is June 24, 2025. The Court agrees that this is a material discrepancy, and it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion is granted, and the Inspection Warrant dated June 24, 2025 is hereby quashed. DONE AND ORDERED on this day of , 2026. Rob Crown County Court Judge 3JZlo AA Copies to: Collier County Code Enforcement County Attorney's Office Dan Schmitt IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, COLLIER COUNTY, vs. Code Case No.:CESD 20260001085 2355 HERITAGE TRAIL LLC, owner[s] of 2355 HERITAGE TRAIL, NAPLES, FL 34112 COLLIER COUNTY, FL, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH INSPECTION WARRANT THIS CAUSE was brought before the Court on an Emergency Motion to Stay Execution and to Quash Inspection Warrant. The motion asserts that, "The warrant contains a material date discrepancy." Specifically, the affidavit was signed on March 23, 2026, and the date on the warrant is June 24, 2025. The Court agrees that this is a material discrepancy, and it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion is granted, and the Inspection Warrant dated June 24, 2025 is hereby quashed. , DONE AND ORDERED on this' ' N day of \ lL— , 2026. Rob Crown County Court Judge 3120 AA Copies to: Collier County Code Enforcement County Attorney's Office Dan Schmitt Colter County Growth Management Department Code Enforcement Division DATE: April 1, 2026 TO: Minutes & Records, Bldg F 4th Floor FROM: Helen Buchillon, Code Enforcement RE: Code Enforcement Warrant, Affidavit, Exhibits and Denied Motion to Quash Inspection Warrant Please find attached the warrant affidavit and exhibits issued by the Code Enforcement Department. I respectfully request that your office certify all documents contained herein and then forward the document, with this memo, to the Recording Department for official recording. Recording Department Instructions: Please record all documents contained herein as Warrant, Affidavit, Exhibits and Denied Motion to Quash Inspection Warrant return the originals to the Minutes and Records Department. Please send a statement of all recording fees to: Helen Buchillon Operations Support Specialist II Growth Management Department Collier County Code Enforcement 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 The Code Enforcement Cost Account is 111-138911-649030. Thank you all very much for your assistance. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at: 239-252-5892. 01144, rz"�Ur'S� Code Enforcement Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,Florida 34104.239-252-2440•www.colliergov.net m0r- mZ -rn IJ 73000o c -I = A — IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT o 0 iv IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA x a) o7J = o STATE OF FLORIDA, o n A DODO COLLIER COUNTY 7 <73 D ZO V. INSPECTION WARRANT 0 0) o � 2355 Heritage Trail LLC, owner[s] of -0 2355 Heritage Trail,Naples FL. 34112 0 Collier County Florida. m Code Case Number: CESD20260001085 BEFORE ME, , Judge of the Circuit Court in and for Collier County, Florida, personally appeared Code Enforcement Division ("CED") Code Officer II , Craig Cooper, who being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has cause to believe and does believe that a condition of non-conformity exists on the property more particularly described as: [2355 Heritage Trail,Naples, FL, 34112 ("the Property")] Interior and exterior of property and structures On April 2nd of 2024, CED received a complaint forwarded from Collier County Commissioner's Office, alleging that the property located at 2355 Heritage Trail, Naples, FL, 34112 had prohibited land use violations including but not limited to "Home is alleged to be a halfway house or sober house facility. Please check to see if that is the use of the property, and if it is, that it has all required permits and/or licenses for this type of activity" (Exhibits A.1 — A.3). It was later determined by Zoning Manager Ray Bellows that group care facilities housing more than 6 individuals would require a Site Development Plan ("SDP") and an approved conditional use through the county (Exhibits B.1 — B.3). Further research on this property while reviewing case CELU20240003149 revealed potentially unpermitted construction resulting in an additional case on the property. Case number CESD20260001085. During our research of the property, it is noted on the website, https://artoflivinghome.org/naples, that the property has two homes for women and one home for men, and a community barn (Exhibits C.1 —C.6). Research on the property shows one main dwelling structure, a guest house, one stable and storage area, and two garages (Exhibits D.1 —D.17). Research revealed that the Property at 2355 Heritage Trail, Naples, FL, 34112 is owned by 2355 Heritage Trail LLC, according to the records of the Collier County Property Appraiser. The Folio for the property is 00402000006 (Exhibits E.1). In addition, there is a pattern of similar cases reported to the CED within the past five years on a separate property with common ownership/management. Case CESD20250000741 has previously been adjudicated by the special magistrate and found in violation for unpermitted alterations/structures (Exhibits F.1 — F.8). Further research via Sunbiz documents revealed common ownership/management shown to be Daniel Schmitt (Exhibits G.1 — G.2 & H.1 — H.2). See attached recorded Finding of Fact showing violation found on property with common ownership (Exhibits I.1 —I.3). I, Craig Cooper, contacted the property/business owner by way of phone February 4th, 2026, requesting access to the property. That request was subsequently denied verbally and again later by email (Exhibits J.1 — J.3). There is no reason to believe that further requests for access will be successful without the issuance of an Inspection Warrant or similar court order. This Inspection Warrant shall be effective for a period of fourteen(14) days from the date of its issuance unless extended or renewed by me upon being satisfied that such an extension or renewal is in the public interest. This Inspection Warrant must be executed and returned within the time specified or within the extended or renewal time period. After the expiration of such time, the Inspection Warrant, unless executed, is void. An inspection pursuant to this Inspection Warrant shall not be made between 6 p.m. of any day and 8 a.m. of the succeeding day; on Saturday, Sunday, or any legal holiday. An inspection pursuant to this inspection Warrant may be made in the absence of an owner or occupant over the age of 18 years of age specifically authorized upon a showing that such authority is reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the rule being enforced. This Inspection Warrant shall not be made by means of forced entry. Notice that this Inspection Warrant has been issued shall be given to the property owner at least 24 hours before the Inspection Warrant is executed. Immediate execution of this Inspection Warrant shall be prohibited. Any person who willfully refuses to permit an inspection authorized by a warrant pursuant to Chapter 933, Florida Statutes is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,punishable as provided in Section 775.082 or 775.083 of the Florida Statutes. THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT, BUILDING REVIEW AND PERMITTING DEPARTMENT, THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT, HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND COLLIER COUNTY SHERRIF'S OFFICE ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SEARCH, EXCEPTING THE ENTRY TO THE PROPERY, 2 FORTHWITH, THE PREMISES DESCRIBED AND NAMED ABOVE BEING SITUATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SERVING THIS INSPECTION WARRANT AND MAKING THE SEARCH OF THE PREMISES AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL THIS, --2 DAY OF MARCH 2026 JUDGE Gd=,.0t,,i,✓ , COLLIER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, COLLIER COUNTY AFFIDAVIT FOR v. INSPECTION WARRANT 2355 Heritage Trail LLC, owner[s] of 2355 Heritage Trail,Naples FL, 34112 Collier County Florida. Code Case Number: CESD20260001085 AFFIDAVIT OF CRAIG COOPER IN HIS CAPACITY AS CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II FOR COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCMENT STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE ME, personally appeared Craig Cooper, Code Enforcement Officer II, known to me to be the person who personally executed this Affidavit and who, first being duly sworn, says under oath as follows: 1. My name is Craig Cooper. I have been employed by Collier County's Code Enforcement Division ("CED") for the past 3 Years. In my employment, I am charged with the inspection and investigation of potential violations of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances and the Land Development Code. On April 2nd of 2024, CED received a complaint forwarded from Collier County Commissioner's Office, alleging that the property located at 2355 Heritage Trail,Naples, FL, 34112 had prohibited land use violations including but not limited to "Home is alleged to be a halfway house or sober house facility. Please check to see if that is the use of the property, and if it is, that it has all required permits and/or licenses for this type of activity" (Exhibits A.1 —A.3). It was later determined by Zoning Manager Ray Bellows that group care facilities housing more than 6 individuals would require a Site Development Plan("SDP") and an approved conditional use through the county (Exhibits B.1 —B.3). Further research on this property while reviewing case CELU20240003149 revealed potentially unpermitted construction resulting in an additional case on the property. Case number CESD20260001085. During our research of the property, it is noted on the website, https://artoflivinghome.org/naples,that the property has two homes for women and one home for men, and a community barn(Exhibits C.1 —C.6). Research on the property shows one main dwelling structure, a guest house, one stable and storage area, and two garages (Exhibits D.1 —D.17). (Type or Print) My Commission Expires: App e loiffn and lega sufficiency: All Kt d 6t^'1 • ' ', Ronald Tomasko Assistant County Attorney 3 ,` f;14 4 , t 1y ,�' dam► ) tfr. N ; , +✓' E tjy a •,�•' " i ,, 3 s D ' df 1 r _pqR R '.6 ‘,,,, , (.. •....- % • ' fr'2355 et • •V : , +Af 'el�k�` R ,r s f ). - M\`nk �fI r-�- c� s^cc c-Acs-3 ✓- cb - ti-\‘r.I ,S. et-r- g A- cs--Y\\ ,y E*. �! ;� fit% vir • -" T. lei ••••••J v.„ • ,r- .• ,,,,, ,, • . it syll,. v.. • e i- i _ art = . t li , L ar �j A. � r, 1 i, MO' ' ! k r 7 y i-' it • et' ' °4 6. + 4a ."1,k. b�N... , �g �� , a� *. M � p e e* R • ' ( • • • �'iJ • 1. "t ; .t ;A• l' V 4 ice' • I { 2355 r ., reo4- ce V)0Se_ aAsL Date: 3 - 30 - c2O (, Structure: B Address: (2 3 Her.49 e, Tr I Number of Rooms: Photos taken by: Q icLA ede.P ert Number of Beds: Inventory Sheet completed : SiVf Q. 614-icall1Number of Bathrooms: P.Time In: U 'd I cofh Time Out: • 16 Q rh Total of Photos taken: Vitus — . 3 -thi d = ('-( Photo# Room Description Photo Description 1 ervii..te Pr, ✓ a 6Dt I.fi r; b i( V i a Q F,r-or Oi1t--z) N o r AN s. Q_y ;o r i ✓ 5- Nor tndou) 14-i . e-a eho+fr; Dr ✓ n vkaC " Sow Si cka -P ; )(-✓ IN f_s4- (to tj01.2r, i o 1 \ A- C- La1,24 v .i 12 r 04,n e. a kfAUt L 4 U a i pY wr,bf c; 11) c\o sue- 140 ofo14i-\d I- eickeii or ,i, i." l if �� o w o� pc�.SSu�f',� *Anti- lue. s;d 15 q y-oy 4,111 1 9 , .:-., - C,1(14,6%. \% 4- cQ- owuri ail c' 11 C\ost, —vp - ' cam- V.9 v \ i I clod.- 4 �,,,C �a 1 C\o, - q cn - 3 seks. -304 -� CA, irt- Li te)(9-- Fes- ic9� 14,LAccv t\N V►a. ° \sir aA AACCivay n PI C.._ S -) IKCO 0 q0Aag NC, wc60-‘ 0 fQ tr el 3 wl d.14 C,Uo - V2 W 0- 1 V Date: 3-3O cQ(g Structure: S3 Address: 23 5 S ffer;+cle Tr I Number of Rooms: Photos taken by: g 4N 6 oe. + Number of Beds: Inventory Sheet completed : S lankl7(,L Number of Bathrooms: Time In: Time Out: Total of Photos taken: Photo# Room Description Photo Description aw rAte✓` oc v►ditc v vror- pMO '/ ,rug m t floor' ll ,, Ll tWeh aNt) 6 ki EzlatoOM 3 C.6(►n44..✓ Wivuoir,„ l'f• ,conAcir-- 0.-t-)u )1/, l' Aoki -kowaAd3 9,kbit (OOrIN Vert/ 4 --)n g At fke)DINN 4cAJGL/43 ‘1-01 lA tun.ail ( r ) ✓ r n.r5 (t b Ctrrki Dinh iv, (d-(4) Act ry, 40 , ,,,, ,y � r �na tz, ki.t. c..10 la `I S" --C,kRY ,41 rop nN Date: 3-30-dt ,tp Structure: g Address: p3 SS fkr3ae r ( Number of Rooms: • to Photos taken by: fiG.I1 EiO fet 4- Number of Beds: Inventory Sheet completed : 3T-MIAIIII€ GLCHUAN Number of Bathrooms: Time In: Time Out: Ct VS_Q_ alV Total of Photos taken: EMICke (& I V;siO o3—3 Photo# Room Description Photo Description 1-1 q catuaLf -i, 5-0 -iotAct �Q . brof90Aztli IiiiouNsL 1-1 ;ma Pax.Q),1 \ni e:Lrc fa" k 5 'at 'h, - 5 5 w V \ `� l9 cQ cdnbr w'� o w WC- a -w- t Fi (It eeit n, Set CoLvy- Lco CD 0 fv t (, I 44 Q` — f C1,11 &APplcF �� i� cur r -v ( 0 ‘ oot 14A ;sin UM c, bSt- oof t��in 1 wp � i Date: 31 3c i * Structure: aAu1SC+' ,fi-- C. Address: J3E5 1�`U'r t, lrcil 1 Number of Rooms: .3 Photos taken by: - M t,J SC-. Number of Beds: Inventory Sheet completed : J- m► ubsc, Number of Bathrooms: ` Time In: Z,'. 31 A Time Out: cl• LiIppfm Total of Photos taken: 1 U0 Photo# Room Description Photo Description _ WcAtr- r crd 1.)cltr Sip%c�c -- I '`�C&C.r(cr CuHd I kyhi-- -3‘W e-r►te. hu Z. L le Li-n L h - r nshi- crcr C4- build IN\ I Eat r 1 rrcr VI CID ('A— build in) x-k'Grl tr' CO-IC- - rrsr c4- 1pu.lti th, 1 Y..Irti,rr VIel. rt Quill A\ 1 lAc c trtr►sl \ r_ - rrr.r (4- k,Id ►N% 1 \).)ci-Gc 5 p c - — rc.r - bu 1Irl i n.) I flc' r- cd- 6411Uh nc.i 1 Icellicut' G. Its- - Left- (-cry- c - 6itIdtni E'Nrtts•tI nt" - \e l+- S I a c'd- tau 1)cl ►11r) a 1 -I('. Qc Acliini r l Y1 l t- ' ribs A I Fk r,(.01 l►("NV rii rnS ,Per- Fri f• z S 91 I+ f)I c 5Lis+trn .d- 1 cAbc,( I ,A-1-- I> -+- if- build IN Z• X. Or, c t ll c 41& - 4rrri4- 1 e+i- Cf. IDUI Id 1JY^ I !Farr,l- 1Q-i- e-0-- build\not t i ).)e\,r. 4 ►tfir- — reAli- 1e •- 4-- bu►►ot►9 1 J i-n-, y t . -In C .It- .-i- t4uri- I3 \ - !- * \t1��rttr. k-+- -Aar - 4a - AAA\ Date: 3/ 30I ( Structure: ki, - Address: 035- iv'r rcbt, i f,+ Number of Rooms: 3 Photos taken by: 3 . uSS C Number of Beds: Inventory Sheet completed : J - 4. u&sc__ Number of Bathrooms: 1 Time In: I'. 31 pY\ Time Out: \'• 46, p Total of Photos taken: I U) Photo# Room Description Photo Description y' 1r i Hcc-1—' Yin± + cAe rfir,r, ,perd 1 \P+r Zit FI cQr.v.i \ ,--M-i(r . Z .0pci 'FA ctr- S Traw'. ( .' UK$)$3`, Cr'r l 6t I L 'CNC\\nY - 30 .4-- LA 1 j m\C.kt 55 LC l cr hCGicr 7, I ntun(ir Ctri -3 t:-� I I MS t)Li- 1oci,/ 1, 1 1 !1\c r )�ACLJ O9J•I1dr—a Date: March 30. 2026 Structure: D Main House Address: 2355 Heritage Trail Number of Rooms: 6 Photos taken by: _Adam Collier Number of Beds: Inventory Sheet completed :_Cristina Perez Number of Bathrooms: Time In: Time Out: Total of Photos taken: Photo# Room Description Photo Description 1 Hallway Far out View 1 Hallway Smoke Detector 1 Half Bathroom Toilet 2 Half Bathroom Vanity Countertop and sink 2 Half Bathroom Humidistat on wall 1 Half Bathroom Light fixture 1 Foyer Back Foyer with fridges 1 Foyer Staircase 2 Foyer exit sign above the french doors and smoke detector 1 Dinning Room Far Out View 4 Catwalk Area Catwalk area-Glass and metal material 1 Catwalk Area Mini Split 1 Laundry Room Laundry room sign 1 Laundry Room Far Out View 2 Laundry Room Breaker Box 1 Laundry Room Sink and Counter top 1 Laundry Room Mini Split 1 Up Stairs open space Far Out View 2 Up Stairs open space Fan Fixtures 2 Up Stairs open space Mini Splits above the bedroom doors 1 Up Stairs open space Far Out View 1 Bedroom Ceiling A/C unit 2 Bedroom Ceiling A/C unit 1 Jack and Jill Bathroom Far Out View 2 Jack and Jill Bathroom AC Unit 1 Jack and Jill Bathroom Shower and toilet Date: March 30, 2026 Structure: D Main House Address: 2355 Heritage Trail Number of Rooms: 6 Photos taken by: Adam Collier Number of Beds: Inventory Sheet completed :_Cristina Perez Number of Bathrooms: Time In: Time Out: Total of Photos taken: Photo# Room Description Photo Description 4 Exterior Exterior before entering 1 Well Well in the exterior 1 Exterior A/C unit on the exterior South side of the house 1 Exterior A/C unit label, manufactored August 2023 1 Back of property Back of the property 1 Exterior Front Mini Split in front of main structure 4 Exterior Front Mini Split label;2019 1 Exterior Front Electrical Box for solar panels 3 Entery Way Long view of entry way,both directions 1 Kitchen long view of bar area 2 Kitchen Dishwasher 1 Kitchen Oven,stove,exhuast hood 1 Kitchen Kitchen far out view 1 Livingroom Far out view 1 Livingroom Mini Split, electrical outlets,and wood frame beam 2 Livingroom electrical outlets 1 Livingroom exit sign above the french doors 1 Hallway Outlet for attic fan 1 Hallway far out view of hallway 3 Bedroom Electrical panel in bedroom on right 1 Bathroom Far our view-fullsize bathroom 3 Bathroom Dehumitifier 2 Bathroom Bathroom shower 2 Bathroom Toilet 3 Bathroom Instant Hot water in closet Date:_March 30,2026 Structure:_D Main House Address:_2355 Heritage Trail Number of Rooms: 6 Photos taken by: _Adam Collier Number of Beds: Inventory Sheet completed :_Cristina Perez Number of Bathrooms: Time In: Time Out: Total of Photos taken: Photo# Room Description Photo Description 2 Outside Balcony Balcony 2nd Floos 2 Outside Balcony Floor Board 1 Outside Back Yard A/c Window Unit and Pipes 2 Outside Back Yard Coop and Plung deck 5 Outside Back Yard Cold Plung deck and equipment 1 Backyard Exposed wires 1 Outside Mini Split 1st 1 Outside Label 1 Outside Mini Split 2nd 1 Outside Label 1 Outside Mini Split 3rd 1 Outside Label 1 Outside Irrigation Box 1 Outside Concrete platform 2 Outside Plumbing Cut off 2 Outside 4 holes on bottom of siding 2 Outside Broken Siding 1 Outside Exposed wires 1 Pool pump Pool pump plumbing 3 Pool pump Blowers Exposed wires 3 Pool pump Exposed wires 1 Accessory Structure far out view of structure 2 Accessory Structure Infered Heaters 2 1/2 bathroom sink and toilet 1 Accessory Structure Sink plumbing in accessory structure and outlet Date: March 30,2026 Structure:_D Main House Address: 2355 Heritage Trail Number of Rooms: 6 Photos taken by: Adam Collier Number of Beds: Inventory Sheet completed :_Cristina Perez Number of Bathrooms: Time In: Time Out: Total of Photos taken: Photo# Room Description Photo Description 1 Accessory Structure Countertop with outlets in accessory structure 1 Accessory Structure Barn doors and lighting 1 Accessory Structure Light fixture 3 Accessory Structure Backside of structure-window-old countertops 2 Backyard Disposed countertop by trees 9 Bedroom Closet Unfinished room inside bedroom closet and mini splint 1 Bathroom Fullsize bathroom 1 Bathroom Shower 1 Bathroom Dehumitifier 1 Bathroom Dehumitifier drainage 1 Bathroom mini split 1 Bathroom fullsize of vanity 1 Bathroom Toilet 1 Outside house Exterior runs along wall 2 Outside Gate 148 Total Pictures & 2 Videos Date: -?— 3'�' " t-‘ Structure: . C . Address: Z ; ,rs'- Ater_; I-4 ` Tr,,4 ; \ Number of Rooms: 0 Photos taken by: Creti(9 "" Number of Beds: 0 Inventory Sheet completed : Da✓i I€, P;t 1WJIt Number of Bathrooms: 0 Time In: ': S-U Time Out: 1 to Total of Photos taken: Photo# Room Description Photo Description i av tcjit frby, i 4- -La- 1:3)4f5 3'ecter, )&0-- Z ou1s.i c le 1--f J I ,15 r4 (,-a 143144 L ,,'f,ts7d1 1- (-� -1-a �-h) 1�� 41 II__ 5 fie) /- jh Jetcic C ea7or rth1‘ 15 ac w (a'7 cJ6J c et;944 ✓ /k', sJij 1 © (i t5;%�-e- r.� h ,n)r v7 i v/' 1 kreai 1(� l }� a l cV U/s de ✓ljh T £enirt.)1'1l'L G� �r 4/1 c4' "C-r: . , ( °lc,If r1 1 J ✓ / I t i yi- r;o,. e le c r;.[4 l fiavt / 1 `5 f.r /r / S7 ► L1 I ` J` ) 4d 4040 ro 0 er, >11A' r-.ill 0 )0-raft 490/ It, IA 1A. rajt t�Ja �C J w/ (yen,e r A de tA)i li do 1.-, I - ,-6 4� 1 " TV F; re Met et (w+ z r (A:hi d e, r )I t e lc CIV t; ) s i•.e • .13 it . - 25 0 / ( Date: ,- 3 c3 - 4-.6 Structure: �F Address: 2 3.S-5 - /Ple c-; -ra S ,z j rH., _ ( Number of Rooms: f Photos taken by: Cleo)y Cfri. Number of Beds: i Inventory Sheet completed : 1 AN1 Number of Bathrooms: I Time In: p ICE Time Out: 9- CO Total of Photos taken: Photo# Room Description Photo Description 1 CC Sorg rid tik -1 4e ,& y coi Ail, 71 3 G�-r%s5-or,y Jn r 0 K. ill -- Li soy )-764 4" nu l-Je1 t stl iert kcesso r y l-i f4- to-c& ifr1 ory le I14 (, - f, ss.40Y y I.e' - cp r F c q5� y 1.e f- ri' e r fa a ou1'rLI� 9 ;hill e,- h� 10 ' Gut/ Ie'-F J s ( J Or s r 11 41-1,95.5;0,7 rea r e- c'c° , Z l Ge ySory (ea. r 1,y )1 l-- I .4`f:e < v)i (eac arm iv»i y A - I Ll A- tes;hv rear ✓v, r vi J,,2 ,L c-, I c e%r�ry> ,'-e- u , ,' 41- bre41re 1-,,nk/ ir/ CeSc ry Ow' 'de r a W thYk ( 00 --11 Ai 7 PI e r►-Fra I)j� i i"/eri r- I R to a n►- b k .1 c- Yvr%n i Yli .I - -...Alk a Vraii,711 '', -!-!.17._.,.....r.,,77..._-_ -_ ._...-_,, - . .1:7--1.4 H cze f/rn{HI 11 g P�; kto' et 6HQ- -722 ,ke) 1( 101-64 Date: Structure: Address: Number of Rooms: Photos taken by: Number of Beds: Inventory Sheet completed : Number of Bathrooms: Time In: Time Out: Total of Photos taken: Photo# Room Description Photo Description V4 fiY k 1u►hLiiii -z5- -11711et Z -7 s ko,,,,-e, 2 t Ai-c,,,,,, Z 7 r-‘`d � tucks f t, ,,,i 4 e 4f L1 3v Opt It r//Q feK 3J c.Ocef _z, wy,i4.-- be , >;I, k 3 w) -Q er4 a J 3 -3 5 tN err .1--ebti-r'ieN7 5y5iseh-, 6 1)a>Lk 5 64 e /e,c/v )7 ,i I , , 3 ' 4444✓ - y -e ri )w w►tic z 9y 4"It m c)r., L11 A N. ciV e ✓ i j hi-- V70 r'rA tA},'rr ✓ h Lie wi -e✓ 9 / tI Z ( (A45 `� V )14 cv)/ ►� 4- e iceti, `f. L / Ou+s/` / r` 9A l _ Ir_ ✓1'c.a I h,,) ' 4 ��_fi oq fro e.Vlret oL6 eIC' r:/-//L/ Ilrrl � 1' , e o) tIlr f • 1 , 7 ti 1'S r le -1'4- Sde, !rn lei/a [. Cirre, -/ci-ilv- ,i- Date: Structure: Address: Number of Rooms: Photos taken by: Number of Beds: Inventory Sheet completed : Number of Bathrooms: Time In: Time Out: Total of Photos taken: Photo# Room Description Photo Description 0 111 -/-6 d- rM 'is/ £ i ,/ it r. ►- )9a u- c cidr9 e ¢ t-I ' iy 1i ti/ /1 Q x ' R7 never vv44/ 1 n /C+ + KOOM l I,4l/ P 4 i`� lei - yam, c'L l e'ri- ✓Jr) /C7101 ( CY -4-n f 4hrrij-t. ' 5 f i r I ) r g 00 o- qv. 5Jir. /vie2 53 /Vew ,Net)/ vti/ i YI 4 Gt l / 7 /0 r) A.1 Adam Collier From: Thomas landimarino Sent: Tuesday,April 2, 2024 2:32 PM To: Janis Morse Cc: Jo Jo; Rick LoCastro; Dan Kowal;Joseph Mucha;Aixa Capizzi Subject: RE:2200 Heritage Trail Mr. Morris, Code Enforcement will open a case regarding the use of this property. There was a previous case that had a similar fact pattern as you are stating and that case was closed in Jan of 2022 as Code was not able to identify that the property was being used outside of its intended purpose. Please feel free to contact the area Supervisor,Joe Mucha (cc'd on this email)or me for any further requests that you may need. Thank you, Tom Tom Iandimarino Director Collier County Code Enforcement 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Office: (239)252-5706 (direct line) Code Enforcement main number: (239)252-2440 To file a code complaint: Welcome -CityView Portal (colliercountyfl.gov) From: Rick LoCastro<Rick.LoCastro@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent:Tuesday,April 2, 2024 8:06 AM To:Janis Morse<janiskmorse@gmail.com> Cc:Jo Jo<joburtonjo@gmail.com>;Thomas landimarino<Thomas.landimarino@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: 2200 Heritage Trail Phillip First, my apologies for replying to your e-mail later than I expected. At times I get hundreds of citizen emails a day and I take great pride and personally answering each one. As I was going through my inbox for some reason I must have skipped over yours... or might have read it initially and wanted to talk with County staff first -- but nevertheless... I see I never sent you a reply. My apologies again... it's not my usual standard. Your address below is actually in District 4... so Commissioner Dan Kowal is who you should be conversing with. We all refrain from stepping into each other's Districts for issues such as this. 1 A.2 However-- having said that, if your concerns still have yet to be answered -- I have added our senior County Code Enforcement Director to this e-mail. Thomas landimarino will take a look at your e-mail below and should be able to comment, point this in the right direction, or all of the above. Stand by and let's see what Tom has to say about your note below... and he will also pull Commissioner Kowal into this discussion. Thank you for being a newsletter subscriber... and for your support! ...Rick RICK LOCASTRO Collier County Commissioner District 1 SIGN UP FOR MY NEWSLETTER HERE! <<OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)>> Rick.LoCastroCa�CollierCountyFL.gov 3299 Tamiami Trail E, Suite 303, Naples FL 34112 Office: (239) 252-8601 OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> <<OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)>> <<OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)>> Original Message From: Janis Morse <janiskmorse@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 3:28 PM To: Rick LoCastro <Rick.LoCastro@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Jo Jo <joburtonjo@gmail.com> Subject: 2200 Heritage Trail EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Philip Morse 2200 Heritage Trail Naples, FL 34112 Good Day, I am writing to you as the neighbors and I don't know where else to get this information. Our private road , Heritage Trail, supports 5 households and an empty lot, each household 5 acres on a dead end road. An issue has come up with 2355 Heritage Trail. Since the home at 2355 was purchased the owners have built a guest house, expanded a garage to 2 stories, updated a barn, remodeled the home and built a quanset hut garage, all permitted. What concerns the residents of Heritage Trail, is the comming and going of foot traffic, mopeds, bikes, cars, trucks. We believe it is a half way house, a boarding house, a sober living facility or a drug rehab. While all the above have a valid place in the community we feel we should have some insight to the facility. Last weekend 6 police vehicles visited the house both on Sat and Sunday, which makes us feel unsafe. Another incident is where the Jones household had someone come up 2 A.3 to their front door through a gate that was left open and asked , "Is this the house?", at 8p at night. Our road is posted no trespassing. It has a sign Slow children at play which goes unnoticed. I have looked up the owner of record and it is an LLC, which has twice changed. If the "home" is a certified facility does the permitting required to operate the facility include a "Good neighbor" policy where each of the residents of Heritage Trail are advised how to get in to contact with someone if there are complaints or concerns? There has to be someone in charge or onsite to address any issues that may come up with the residents of the facility. There seems to be some level of secrecy involved, certainly they are not trying to blend into this community. Previously there has been issues with code enforcement for foliage removal and trash but those have been rectified. I thank you in advance for any information you can share with us. I also thank you for being so accessible. The newsletters are informative and interesting. Philip Cottie Morse 3 B.1 Adam Collier From: Ray Bellows Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 5:21 PM To: Joseph Mucha Cc: Dee Pulse Subject: FW:ZONING DETERMINATION CELU20240003149 Attachments: CELU20240003149 040424 PIC (1)jpg; CELU20240003149 AERIAL 2024 CELU20240003149 FARR WEBSITE 2.' CELU20240003149 FARR WEBSITET 3.jpg; JP9% CELU20240003149 FARR WEBSITE jpg;CELU20240003149 GOOGLE EARTH AERIAL jpg; CELU20240003149 ZONING AG jpg; Determination.docx As noted below, the Agriculture Zoning District permits a "Family Care Facility" subject to the provisions of Section 5.05.04 of the LDC. However, a Conditional Use (CU) is required for any sober house that exceeds 6 individuals under care. Any care facility that serves more than 6 individuals is treated as a Group Care Facility which also requires SDP approval. • A family care facility shall be treated as a single-dwelling unit for the purpose of determining applicable development standards and, therefore, shall conform to the standards identified for a single-family dwelling unit or mobile home in the zoning district assigned to the property, as well as other applicable standards found in this Code. However. a new family care facility shall not be located within a radius of 1.000 feet of another existing family care facility. • Family care facility:A residential facility designed to be occupied by not more than 6 persons under care, plus staff as required by rule 59A-36.010, F.A.C., and constituting a single dwelling unit(i.e., adult congregate living facility for: aged persons; developmentally disabled persons; physically disabled or handicapped persons; mentally ill persons; and persons recovering from alcohol and/or drug abuse. Foster care facilities are also included, but not the uses listed under group care facility (category II). This use shall be applicable to single-family dwelling units and mobile homes. Ray Bellows Manager- Planning Zoning Colter Corn 0 X IA A Ray.Bellows(a�colliercountyfl.gov From:Joseph Mucha<Joseph.Mucha@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday,April 15, 2024 4:23 PM To: Ray Bellows<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Dee Pulse<Dee.Pulse@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW:ZONING DETERMINATION CELU20240003149 Good Afternoon Ray, When you have a chance, please review attached zoning violation determination. 1 B.2 Thanks, Jae.Mucfza Investigative Supervisor Code Enforcement Division 2800 North Horseshoe Dr, Naples FL 34102 Email:joseph.mucha@colliercountyfl.gov 239-252-2452 Office 239-252-3920 Fax Note:Email Address Has Changed YI Co er County "HOW ARE WE DOING?" Please CLICK HERE to fill out a CUSTOMER SURVEY. we appreciate(your feedbacle! Original Message From: Dee Pulse<Dee.Pulse@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday,April 15, 2024 4:15 PM To:Joseph Mucha<Joseph.Mucha@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Dee Pulse<Dee.Pulse@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: ZONING DETERMINATION CELU20240003149 RE: 2355 Heritage Trl PARCEL 402000006 Joe, Please send to Zoning for review. Thank you, Dee Delicia Pulse(Dee) Code Enforcement Officer II FACE I, II, III, IV Code Enforcement Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Tel. (239)252-2440 Cell 239-877-8131 Fax. (239)252-2343 NEW---Dee.pulse@colliercountyfl.gov "HOW ARE WE DOING?" Please CLICK HERE to fill out a CUSTOMER SURVEY. We appreciate your feedback! 2 B.3 Note:To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 3 ABOUT NAPLES, FLORIDA Our home is nestled in Naples, FL. At the Art of Living Home,we believe that every participant in recovery deserves a safe, supportive and comfortable atmosphere while they continue to lay their own personal foundation towards health and C.2 happiness.The beautiful climate, more than so miles of pristine white sand along the Gulf of Mexico and over all tranquility that Naples offers will aid in your recovery. OUR HOMES The Art of Living Home for women comprises of two homes on a 5- acre property.The first home is a fully updated five bedroom,three and a half bath home. Two of the bedrooms are private and three are shared.The second home is a four bedroom,three bath home with a pool.There is one private room with private bath,two private rooms with shared bath,and in the master bedroom there is two queen-sized beds with private bath. Both features spacious separate living areas and bright,fully stocked kitchen with updated appliances. The Art of Living Home for men has a newly renovated seven bedroom home consisting of four private rooms,three shared bedrooms,and a pool.The men's home has a spacious open kitchen with all new appliances,community-style dining room,as well as a grand living MOM. A - • : . X 121111111 -A,I, ' la civilize'', ,s 4 4P Pot t . c. fsi . .. ci ema= j•(A. ;.:'.iiii:j ori f:, tr ft v • . .,. • s .,•... ... :: . . ... ,,, .. ._.. FM • - , i — .. - .... , .. . _ . Weak-— .44iiop.„ ... — .......,, '.: ' I' • 1 k4 . .. _ ...r.. 1 I I r 1 'Wm • --Ilk ....,.. _ . ............._ . ••,, .. . ,,.,.. ..• 400... .. . . ., . ...„._ ., .. . . . .....„ • .. I . - , -I.. • ... . • . _ ,. . . ................. • ., ....'* 111 . • ..#,..... .....,4 _ , . ..4..L.. _____ 1 ____, :. ,.. ., f .„, . . . , ...._ ...0. ..,..,.._.. .. . :... . .. ... . ,.„„ 4 _ r,. ,-, 1116' _.• - ...-- r itit. i . s ,.; , .. / b. ,.. Y. .. fp' ja`r ) I .j t, 1 7._ ..„,* . THE COMMUNITY BARN One of the truly special features of our home is the CommUnity Barn. This completely rehabbed space is the communal home for activities ranging from weekly meetings,yoga, and movie nights. In the past we have hosted Super Bowl parties, big book meetings,and meditation classes to name a few. • • • • • lirr' . •.... ..,..-,„,, . • • . -.. . . • „ . - • - • 1 00 ' ,. 1 -. - -_____ ....i • ..7...:. - ..----,.-:------... -- ._ ... 4 1 - - .. _ . - ., - _ .'-- ,....--,..>• -'•''.''.f'- i_ : . _ - ..: • _ f — ‘ .,- , I • I *"71;" Am, '''''''.,• .i CO •: P119 • • $ 7 ..41, ,, .- ,:,!,g14.••••• . ow - 4.TV , • ••• 1 , •i. , - 11011Ai ' ei . i '..41% N. .. 1.. LI'.4. '. A 1, 11 , : .., .... •-..:.... ,...'. . . - I '4 L _ I irriiil Poo 111111MINEY )1) .. !' i/ I I \I- .,..r.,,,..* •••••... fv•,,,,,iN 4, ii ,- .,,. es ly.0 ',,1 IA‘ v - • ' *It Or , ,, --"r'=----'---- i -.........--• -•.•v _...---------------- \ ,N•8.... t * NMI - toll 8 18 1 ...-• •,,,,- ...il.. , . . . .......... It . . ,.. .1811 .,:;.. • • re: Witilk, A. 1& -,..."--r...' ---- ,.. , .,......- .... C.6 l'eUr , ._-._.PARR living 1I!NARR Certified Residence National Alliance for t home Recovery Residences ©Copyright 2019-2026 ART OF LIVING HOME I ALL RIGHTS RESERVED f \ J Z.64) I I 3 al C em t") 1 : ii , . s ; I I _i! 1 a I • Ij 111 ,11l J . i fd !E z s • L— •. :-.- o H I , ib..,,..:74: a� • • b :r,' 1,.) v, P. n 14 m 3 dui_iiii_ = 101 111";l214:: :•--_C '', 4r O I. f:;T. ' tt isre-t../iiir- ---. tii gm r: 1.7t1E' .$ r '■'■\ ter ijaQ �V J e liplapr.4 I '' ' 1...1W,.`110 t\•.) P1)1 ,..C.1 \"...\, LIC1) CO P :tAI 9 p I u§v r :gyg i!i N N N N M W H•N r,r, O N `i n. +�n. z v Z ppi O n m� Sr N t91 K8aagdo F'Q § 1:18 ogom ni88tw000 „N 1 I 1 i i i mm:,mueuH i o CJ r 9 13 y g < $ ozm oeta 1yz —�----"� i 1 1 .uN o _ - nC� I I I I I I D tJm -��- x g m o ii11i "s 5A 2:iagog z0.. fogs—aoS '5§ gg F' Da z'A>2 A S�m2 Axg mmo� Sism�nm a yy� q��A z av o v m f"›--mg zd4�- tem�ig -.m fZ-n-.iaS p��`nimgooygaioi=i' r,^ cn £' 6 o 0 o o� cep m^Rg N 8 .4„a-,� soamm�"� m5 r cog , �mgm53. lg. Aim y `-,2 i! I ni GG E i• F. • A = R2 6 ' ; w g p , ' O 1,111 E <$ n w`;" ^ N ........o._.--r..,.a»a� ...,.ba,„.„e.ba °'",'.m... .—moi.,—,==r..,...e...r„ ...> ....r ...a.,.,.a .,e 7,77„,: .,-:„=,...w ".d sms. 3,, .ro....o,a. ., a--------,. -—,.. (n W m m ..., 3003 Tamicmi Rod N. 33 Solte316 Schmitt Residence 1:::@ggn' LCTUS I = S: '` . Naples,Roiitla 34103 �, ; . Guest house and Garage a as< —{ `y., PH:1239)3043041 .7 G O _ ;:� ARCHITECTURE 2355 Heritage Trail. 86 82 0 www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 Naples.Florida 34112 y IN\ 1 t ^ 3 cq 4 y, �/P i B \ i \ 1. I��I��IIi��\\\ 'ia. p1„ .y • �I�j \�i�` a J �� • �~ ill c • ,; I v v ; - P 'Es' yy u 4/ e. U -6 QQQp /I V • ..„......„ cn,x et `` cc ��,,{l • a iy� r: y. ® �t :.•••,••:•..-...,;...-:-..."... .,11.,...... . III\ 1:,° • O- )) N1 ••z (n 4 Cp y ' Ao - r o ) ill MI) _ii ' a It Ai: is . av mart crux f v. v --- Z N mart : 4\1 al x I— -, - o m _ colter Place I d D D = A . L®T U S 30IX tamiarr Iraq N. Schmitt Residence c Suite 316 oZ o�N%-_, • Naples.Ho NA 34103 H.+ S m t " Guest house and Garage r-1 PH:1239 3UC3041 ? 2 Y 5 • -� r g ._--Z.:, �:�',/��' ARCHITECTURE 1 2355 Heritage Trail, �2 �N 82 o FII•i ` , www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 Naples,Florida 34112 , Z q _ f �, 11 i11 6 3�, SI a �.,.,,.11 T. m u) F- -U _ £� D . a ii Z — M + 1, S 1' 1 I'-rI c, t 404 1 If1 1 .4 f-- >-- 't om-• -il i 1 JJ 0 i, €F a lip P A. ° 72 -1 pF T- i r- m 9= 1 d{ H �r ACa 8 1 18I { -`�. r-r is e.fl u +,a.. n.r i rr .4. i .r_r 1 a R 1pg 'Ili K N1 m � 19 I. 0 w •a..za•.;a.gym.�� .,, .a; .rg,.,e; zt . .. ==. �..•=.: m=.:..a,a._,.-b��: =._... r.--"..,g m .--K , -----,••'- og LAY Collier Place! D p E �" ` ': T I I C 3003Samla aTrail N. Schmitt Residence gn g ��m �7a, dI I U J Suite 316 1 T i :� Naples,florae 34103 N a ,� Guest house and Garage i,o �`< T g PH:(239)3043041 ,7 �-2'�/+ 8 �__�� ;;:_'�` , ARCHITECTURE 2355HeritageTrail, 1� NN N�o • oa � - ----� www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 Naples.Rorida34112 $ 9 ti IN THE MATTER OF: Code Enforcement Action by Collier County, Florida Concerning Property Located at 6158 Sea Grass Lane, Naples, FL 34120 CASE NO.: CESD20250000741 MEMORANDUM OF LAW On the Legal Duty to Provide Procedural Accommodations Under the ADA and FHA And the Consequences of Violating That Duty as a Denial of Constitutional Due Process Submitted by: Dan Schmitt, Pro Se 396 Yucca Rd, Naples, Florida 34102 Daninnaples(a�gmail.com[ Dated: Wed May 6, 2025 This memorandum establishes: 1. That public entities are legally obligated to employ procedural accommodations; 2. That failure to pause enforcement while such a request is pending constitutes a per se violation of federal law 3. That this failure denied constitutionally protected Due Process access to justice and placed protected individuals at immediate risk. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction to Foundational Arguments 2. Legal Framework A. Federal Statutory Obligations B. Clarifying ADA Titles II and III C. Scope of Title III D. Scope of Accommodation Includes Procedural Adjustments E. Case Law Supporting Procedural Accommodations for Substance Use Disorders 3. Process Accommodation is a Legal Requirement, Not Discretionary 4. Procedural Due Process and the Fourteenth Amendment ,._ 5. Application to Magistrate's Comments and Systemic Risk 6. Required Remedies 7. Conclusion Supplemental Arguments 8. Supplemental Argument#1: Residents' Rights Survive Property Owner Conduct 9. Supplemental Argument#2: The Primacy of the Accommodation Process 10. Supplemental Argument#3: Code Enforcement is Not Exempt 11. Supplemental Argument#4: Due Process Elevation to Constitutional Law 12. Supplemental Argument#5: Pro Se Constraints and Procedural Injustice 13. Supplemental Argument#6: County's Willful Violations and Pattern 14. Supplemental Argument#7: Procedural Irregularities and Bias 15. Supplemental Argument#8: Innovation as a Protected Accommodation 16. Supplemental Argument#9: Mischaracterization of Intent 17. Supplemental Argument#10: Access to Law, Not Bypass of Law 18. Supplemental Argument#11: Low Threshold for Process and Good Faith 19. Supplemental Argument#12: Clarification of Population and Intent Appendix: Transcript Excerpts I. INTRODUCTION to FOUNDATIONAL ARGUMENTS Defendant: "I respectfully request an immediate stay and or a referral to mediation on the grounds that Collier County has failed to provide reasonable accommodation as required under federal law, resulting in denial of due process." Timestamp: 00:31, May 2 hearing. This memorandum addresses a critical misunderstanding revealed during the May 2, 2025 hearing regarding the nature and scope of"reasonable accommodation" under federal law. Specifically, this memorandum clarifies that reasonable accommodation includes both substantive and procedural adjustments, and that public entities—including local �• governments and magistrates—are legally required to pause enforcement actions upon receipt of such a request. Federal courts and agency guidance from HUD and DOJ recognize that when a person with a r.. disability seeks a modification of procedure, the failure to pause and engage in a �.• meaningful interactive process is not only a violation of the ADA and FHA, but also a �., denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This foundational principle was misapprehended by the presiding magistrate, who openly stated, "I thought I understood reasonable accommodations... I just don't get it." �.► Timestamp: 17:18 �.. The magistrate falsely suggested that the duty to accommodate lies solely with property owners rather than governmental enforcement bodies. This memorandum corrects that legal error and outlines the specific authorities supporting the claim that Collier County's denial �.. of procedural accommodation—without pause or engagement—violated federal law. �.. Defendant submits this brief to establish that the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") requires public entities and public accommodations to provide reasonable accommodations In procedures—not just physical adjustments. Specifically, pauses in enforcement actions, extensions of deadlines, or other flexible �.. procedural timelines can constitute required accommodations under the ADA when necessary to avoid disability-based discrimination. "I have residents that have nowhere to go for their healing and the things they do to stay sober." Timestamp: 08:53 Federal law—both the ADA's text and implementing regulations—mandate reasonable modifications of"policies, practices,or procedures" to ensure equal access for people with disabilities. Courts (including federal courts and Florida courts) have repeatedly upheld such procedural accommodations, including in cases involving individuals with substance use disorders. Conversely, a failure to even consider procedural adjustments reflects an unduly narrow and biased view of the ADA's protections, contrary to the statute's broad remedial purpose. Defendant therefore urges this Court to recognize pauses or timeline modifications as procedural accommodations required by law. II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK A. Federal Statutory Obligations 1. The Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) The FHA requires public and private entities alike to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. This expressly includes government enforcement practices that affect housing-related access (e.g., permitting, utility shutoffs, and code enforcement). 2. ADA Statutory Language (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)). The ADA explicitly defines "discrimination" to include the failure to modify policies or procedures when necessary to accommodate a disability. In the context of public accommodations (Title III of the ADA), Congress provided that discrimination includes: "a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature" of the service or program B. Clarifying ADA Titles II and III The ADA is divided into titles, each governing different sectors. Title ll applies to public entitles—state and local governments, including code enforcement departments and permitting authorities. Title III, by contrast, governs private entities that operate as public accommodations, such as landlords, utilities, or service providers open to the public. Both Titles require reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to avoid disability-based exclusion.The " defendant asserts that the County, as a public entity under Title II, and any related service providers subject to Title III, each bear independent but complementary obligations to make reasonable accommodations. C. Scope of Title III: Services, Privileges, and Procedural Access Under Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)), discrimination includes: "a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities." 2. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) The ADA mandates that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of... a public entity." Public services, including code enforcement and utility oversight, fall squarely within this definition. The ADA's implementing regulation requires that public entities make "reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures" when necessary to avoid disability-based exclusion. Department of Justice regulation 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i) provides: "A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices,or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity." Florida's own State Courts ADA Title II guidance echoes this, stating that the courts will make reasonable modifications in policies and practices for disabled court participants as required by Title II. In sum, both federal statute and regulation enshrine flexibility in procedure as a core component of reasonable accommodation under the ADA. B. Scope of Accommodation Includes Procedural Adjustments Federal courts have held that accommodations under the FHA and ADA are not limited to physical alterations. They include procedural modifications such as deadline extensions, pauses in enforcement, and alternative compliance pathways. McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004): The court held that denying a disabled resident more time to comply with a nuisance abatement order could constitute illegal discrimination under both FHA and ADA. Procedural timelines must be adjusted if necessary to accommodate disability. Schaw v. Habitat for Humanity, 938 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2019): The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that "necessary accommodations" include departures from standard rules and policies when needed to afford access to housing. Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996): This case involved a statewide health policy (Hawaii's 120-day quarantine on all incoming dogs to prevent rabies). The rule was neutral and applied to everyone, but it had a disproportionately harsh effect on individuals with visual disabilities who relied on guide dogs— effectively barring them from entering the state or traveling freely The Ninth Circuit held that, "without reasonable modifications" to the quarantine policy for these individuals, Hawaii was denying them meaningful access to state services in violation of the ADA Loa,, [B . The Court cited the DOJ regulation (28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7))mandating reasonable modifications to policies and procedures E. Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2003): The Second Circuit in Henrietta D. dealt with New York City's administrative procedures for delivering public benefits to persons with HIV. The defendants' conditions made it difficult for them to comply with certain procedural requirements (like in-person appointments at certain intervals), and the lack of accommodations led to lapses in critical benefits. The court held that the ADA(and Rehab Act) required the city to modify its procedures—e.g. by providing assistance or flexibility in the process—to prevent effectively denying benefits "by reason of the disability. It emphasized that a failure-to-accommodate claim is analytically distinct and "not a disparate treatment claim" - it does not require showing others were treated better, only that policies were not modified to accommodate a disability This case reinforces that .--- bureaucratic procedures and timelines must sometimes bend to accommodate disability, and that doing so is required, not optional. Broad ADA Mandate- Neutral Rules vs. Equal Access: The above cases collectively illustrate a vital point: ADA accommodations often involve tweaking a neutral, across-the-board rule (whether a deadline, a fee, a quarantine period, or a bureaucratic requirement)so that a person with a disability can have an equal opportunity to comply or participate. As the Ninth Circuit observed, "the purpose of the ADA's reasonable accommodation requirement is to guard against the facade of'equal treatment'when particular accommodations are necessary to level the playing field." Loa,; Treating everyone the same is not true equality if an unchanged rule"has the effect of discriminating" against those with disabilities 0. 2. Case Law Supporting Procedural Accommodations for Substance Use Disorders The ADA protects individuals in recovery from substance use disorders (42 U.S.C. § 12210(b)), requiring reasonable accommodations that may include procedural flexibility. Courts have held that both Title II and Title III entities must adjust policies and practices to prevent discrimination against those in recovery. •BAART v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999): The Ninth Circuit struck down a zoning ordinance that blocked a methadone clinic, holding that local governments must accommodate disabled individuals in zoning. Even neutral permitting procedures must be reasonably modified if needed for access to treatment. •U.S. v. City of Baltimore (DOJ Settlement, 2016): DOJ required a drug court to permit medication-assisted treatment (MAT), rejecting blanket bans and emphasizing case-by-case procedural accommodations, including modifying court timelines or sanctions to avoid penalizing relapse. •Pesce v. Coppinger, 355 F. Supp. 3d 35 (D. Mass. 2018) & Smith v. Aroostook County, 922 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2019): Courts found that jails' denial of MAT violated the ADA. These cases show that even neutral policies must be modified if necessary to meet disability-related needs, including in scheduling, enforcement, or program deadlines. •Florida Court Guidelines: The Florida Courts System explicitly recognizes that ADA accommodations may affect "court procedures within a specific case," such as hearing dates and extensions. Judges must evaluate such motions considering disability—not categorically reject them. A blanket denial based on inflexible rules violates the ADA's requirement for individualized assessment. •Eleventh Circuit- Schaw v. Habitat for Humanity, 938 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2019): Though under the FHA, this case reinforces that neutral rules(e.g., income thresholds) may need to be waived or adjusted. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that denying modifications without considering necessity and reasonableness constitutes unlawful discrimination. Conclusion: Courts consistently require procedural accommodations for individuals with substance use disorders. Neutral rules— whether zoning, court scheduling, or program timelines-must bend when needed to ensure equal access and avoid discriminatory impact. III. PROCESS ACCOMMODATION IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT, NOT DISCRETIONARY The failure to initiate an interactive process upon receipt of a reasonable accommodation request is a per se violation of federal law. • HUD/DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations (2004) explains that a housing provider or government actor must engage in dialogue, not simply deny or ignore a request. • If an accommodation cannot be granted as requested, the agency must offer an alternative that meets the disability-related need where possible. In the present case, the April 29 written request for reasonable accommodation was not acknowledged or acted upon before the May 2 hearing. The County continued enforcement, including a recommendation to cut off electricity—knowing it would directly harm individuals using electricity-powered therapeutic equipment for disability-related treatment. This refusal to pause enforcement while the request was pending, and failure to engage in the interactive process, directly contravenes the law. IV. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Magistrate: "Unless you can provide solid legal argument that this is subject to a reasonable accommodation standard, I just don't get it." Timestamp: 21:26 The United States Supreme Court has held that essential government services (such as utility access) are constitutionally protected interests, and that governments must provide adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before termination. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (1978): Utility shutoffs constitute a deprivation of property triggering due process protections. Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2003): Code enforcement affecting housing occupancy implicates due process; failure to provide timely notice or hearing violates constitutional rights. In Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999), the court recognized that Title III's term "services" includes intangible benefits such as risk coverage and health access. Similarly, in Robles v. Domino's Pizza, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019), the court affirmed that services tied to a public-facing entity—even if web-based or auxiliary—are covered under Title III when connected to the entity's public offering. These cases illustrate that access to electricity, therapeutic technology, or recovery tools—when integrated into public-facing accommodations—must be protected by reasonable accommodations. Defendant: "Forty-eight hours ago, we were told they're going to recommend that you turn off electricity. That completely changed everything." Timestamp: 30:05-30:20 Where disabilities are concerned, the due process "notice and opportunity" must be interpreted in light of the need for reasonable procedural accommodation. That is, the process must be fair as experienced by the disabled person—which requires the enforcement agency to adjust procedure to prevent exclusion or harm. "The County's refusal to halt enforcement or engage in a procedural dialogue—despite receiving a clear and timely request—constitutes a direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This is not merely an administrative oversight, but a systemic deprivation of protected rights that warrants federal scrutiny and immediate corrective action." Conclusion In sum, the ADA's text, regulations, case law, and commentary uniformly support that "reasonable accommodation" can mean adapting procedures—granting a bit more time, pausing an enforcement action temporarily, altering how a rule is applied—to prevent discrimination. Whether under Title II for public entities or Title III for private parties offering services to the public, these procedural accommodations are not discretionary—they are required by law unless the entity demonstrates undue hardship or fundamental alteration. V. APPLICATION TO MAGISTRATE'S COMMENTS AND SYSTEMIC RISK During the May 2, 2025 hearing, the Honorable Patrick Neale made several statements that reflect a foundational misunderstanding of applicable law: "My understanding of reasonable accommodation is that it's the owner of the property that has to make the reasonable accommodation, not the government." Timestamp: 02:37 "I don't see your failure to obtain a permit as any relevance to your residents' rights." Timestamp: 27:06 These statements are not supported by case law or federal guidance. Both the ADA and FHA apply directly to public entities and their enforcement practices, as repeatedly held in McGary, Schaw, and federal agency guidance. The failure to consider procedural accommodations—such as pausing the hearing or the utility shutoff—violates not only federal statute but also constitutional due process. VI. REQUIRED REMEDIES To correct these violations and prevent further harm: 1. Immediate Stay of Enforcement: All punitive or corrective enforcement actions related to the May 2 case must be paused until the reasonable accommodation request is properly evaluated and an interactive process is completed. 2. Initiation of Interactive Process: The County must formally acknowledge the April 29 request and enter into good-faith dialogue regarding available accommodations, including adjusted timelines or safe, temporary compliance alternatives. 3. Policy Revision and Training: Collier County code enforcement officials and magistrates should be trained to distinguish between physical and procedural accommodations and to recognize that government entities themselves are subject to accommodation duties. VII. CONCLUSION The refusal to engage in an interactive process, combined with the active continuation of enforcement against individuals with disabilities, constitutes a violation of both federal disability law and constitutional due process. The accommodation request submitted on April 29 was not optional—it triggered a legal duty to pause enforcement and engage in dialogue. The May 2 hearing should not have proceeded without resolution of that request. By continuing forward and dismissing the procedural dimensions of reasonable accommodation, the County exposed itself to legal liability and violated the civil rights of its residents. We respectfully request that (1)enforcement be stayed,(2) the interactive process be initiated immediately, and a(3) new procedural standard be implemented county-wide to prevent recurrence. While federal law mandates an immediate response, we respectfully request adherence to these legal demands within 10 business days upon receipt of this brief. Supplemental Argument #1. Even if the Defendant is Engaged in Illegal Activities, the Residents still have Rights to Procedural Accommodations Statement of Facts In the current case, the residents on the property include individuals with disabilities who rely on electrically powered therapeutic equipment essential to their recovery and wellbeing. The County's proposed enforcement action to shut off electricity due to code violations would directly impact these individuals by disabling the critical equipment they depend on. This creates a situation where the residents' disability-related needs are not being met, regardless of any allegations or status of the property owner. "If our residents are displaced, they are people that are nationally recognized(as disabled]." Timestamp: 16:28 _ Legal Framework Under the ADA and FHA as outlined in the foundational arguments, the duty to provide reasonable accommodation focuses on the needs and rights of individuals with disabilities, not on the conduct or legal status of the property owner. The core intent of reasonable accommodation is to ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to housing and necessary services, irrespective of who owns or manages the property. Argument Even if a property owner were hypothetically engaged in criminal activity, it does not negate or diminish the rights of residents with disabilities to reasonable accommodation. The law protects the residents' right to necessary accommodations that enable them to live safely and effectively in their home environment. Thus, the County's obligation to provide reasonable accommodation remains intact, regardless of the property owner's actions. Conclusion In light of the principles of reasonable accommodation as a procedural, not merely physical, requirement, the appropriate response by code enforcement should have been to immediately pause the enforcement action and initiate a mediation process. This procedural accommodation would have allowed for a proper and fair evaluation of the residents' needs and the implementation of reasonable modifications to the enforcement timeline or procedure. Supplemental Argument #2: The process of Reasonable Accommodation is more important than the act of Accommodation itself. Statement of Facts At the May 2, 2025 hearing, the County proceeded with enforcement actions—including recommending a utility shutoff—despite receiving a written request for reasonable accommodation process on April 29. The request specifically asked the County to pause enforcement and initiate a collaborative dialogue to evaluate the impact on individuals with disabilities residing on the property. During the hearing, the respondent repeatedly emphasized the need to "go through the process" of reasonable accommodation, noting that failure to engage this process mirrored systemic failures in a separate, prior code case. The magistrate acknowledged confusion over the concept, stating, "I thought I understood reasonable accommodations... I just don't get it," and requested case law to better understand the basis for a procedural pause as a legal right. Despite these statements, no interactive process was initiated prior to the proposed utility shutoff. Legal Framework The ADA (28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)) and FHA (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)) both require not just the act of accommodation but the engagement of a good-faith, interactive process when a request is made. This procedural obligation is well-established in federal guidance and case law. For example, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a joint statement in 2004 clarifying that the interactive process is a mandatory component of compliance. When an accommodation request is submitted, the entity must open a dialogue, assess the necessity and reasonableness of the request, and respond in a timely, meaningful way. A failure to engage in this process is itself a form of disability discrimination. This principle is consistent across jurisdictions. Courts have found that refusal to engage in the accommodation process—especially when accompanied by rigid adherence to enforcement timelines—is grounds for liability under the ADA and FHA. In Roe v. Sugar River Mills Assocs., 820 F. Supp. 636 (D.N.H. 1993), the court faulted a landlord for failing to engage in an accommodation dialogue prior to eviction. Similarly, in McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004), the court held that the city's failure to consider a pause in enforcement as an accommodation was sufficient to state a claim under the ADA. Argument Reasonable accommodation under federal law is not simply a duty to act—it is a duty to engage. The process of engaging with the individual, assessing their disability-related limitations, and identifying reasonable alternatives is a critical procedural protection. The failure to respond to a timely accommodation request—especially when the requested pause would prevent irreparable harm to persons with disabilities—amounts to a denial of rights under both the ADA and FHA. Statements made during the hearing confirm that the respondent understood and requested the required process: Defendant: "The reasonable accommodation is the process. I just want the process." Timestamp: 17:01-17:10 Defendant: "The same failure in that case is now being repeated again. And that failure is the reasonable accommodation process." These statements reflect a clear understanding of federal law, which mandates engagement and flexibility in enforcement when disability-related needs are implicated. Magistrate: "Unless you can provide solid legal argument that this is subject to a reasonable accommodation standard, I just don't get it." Timestamp: 21:26 The magistrate admission underscores the need for judicial clarification. The ADA and FHA do not allow public entities to proceed with enforcement first and address accommodation later. They require accommodation before enforcement actions are taken, including through pauses or procedural alternatives when necessary. Conclusion The County's refusal to engage in the reasonable accommodation process prior to initiating enforcement constitutes a violation of its legal obligations under federal law. Reasonable accommodation is both a substantive right and a procedural safeguard. The mandated process includes a pause in enforcement timelines and a genuine effort to collaborate with the disabled individuals or their representatives to find workable solutions. The County's failure to do so in this case has deprived protected individuals of their rights and undermined the integrity of the code enforcement process. The Court is urged to recognize that reasonable accommodation begins with process. Before any further enforcement, the County must fulfill its obligation to evaluate accommodation requests through an interactive and legally compliant procedure. Supplemental Argument #3: Code Enforcement Is Not Exempt from the Reasonable Accommodation Process Statement of Facts In Collier County, as in many jurisdictions, code enforcement officials typically approach their responsibilities with a strict adherence to written standards and procedural uniformity. During the May 2, 2025 hearing, County staff emphasized that the case at issue "has nothing to do with accommodations," and insisted that enforcement must proceed according to established permitting and safety rules, without deviation. This position reflected a rigid, binary view of code enforcement—either a structure is permitted or it is not, and if not, enforcement must proceed. However, this enforcement-first posture directly contradicts established federal law when individuals with disabilities are affected. In this case, a timely request for reasonable accommodation was submitted prior to the hearing, asking for a pause in enforcement to evaluate the potential harm to disabled individuals reliant on therapeutic equipment powered by electricity. The County failed to meaningfully engage with this request before proceeding - with enforcement action. Legal Framework The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA) apply with full force to local government activities, including code enforcement. Title II of the ADA mandates that public entities must make "reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures" when necessary to avoid discrimination based on disability (28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)). Likewise, the FHA prohibits public entities from refusing to make reasonable accommodations in the enforcement of rules and policies where such accommodations are necessary for disabled individuals to use and enjoy their housing (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)). Critically, there is no "code enforcement exception" to these statutes. In McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004), a city's code enforcement action was paused due to the defendant's disability and the failure to provide a procedural accommodation. The court held that even neutrally enforced municipal code provisions must be modified when necessary to avoid disability-based exclusion or harm. The DOJ and HUD have likewise emphasized in their guidance that government activities—including zoning, permitting, and code enforcement—are subject to the reasonable accommodation mandate and require flexibility when disability-related needs are at stake. Argument Code enforcement officials often see their role as executing technical rules in a black-and-white manner, with minimal discretion and little tolerance for delay. However, when a reasonable accommodation request is received, the law requires that officials stop their normal enforcement sequence and shift into an interactive process. This is not optional or discretionary—it is a federal mandate designed to protect civil rights. In practice, this means that once a request is made, code officers and hearing officials must shalt the procedural clock, (2) engage the requestor, (3) assess the disability-related need, and(4) evaluate whether a reasonable modification (e.g., delay of enforcement, phased compliance, or alternative procedures) is appropriate_The traditional approach—where enforcement proceeds unless halted by outside legal intervention—must give way to a new, proactive duty to adjust enforcement timelines in response to accommodation requests. Collier County's failure to implement this process represents a systemic legal flaw. Without a clear policy requiring procedural pauses upon receipt of an accommodation request, enforcement continues along its standard track, effectively subordinating the accommodation process to the County's routine workflow. This approach is not legal. It inverts the order mandated by law: reasonable accommodation must precede enforcement when disability-related harm is alleged. Anything less opens the County to liability and undermines the rights of its most vulnerable residents. Conclusion Code enforcement is not exempt from the reasonable accommodation process. The current practices in Collier County—where enforcement proceeds without pause upon receipt of an accommodation request—are inconsistent with federal law. Going forward, the County must implement a fundamental change in how it handles these cases. Code enforcement staff must be trained and required to stop the standard enforcement process and engage in a federally compliant interactive dialogue whenever a reasonable accommodation request is made. Only by integrating this process into the core of code enforcement procedures can the County ensure that it fulfills its legal obligations under the ADA and FHA. Until this shift occurs, Collier County's code enforcement operations remain vulnerable to claims of disability discrimination and due process violations. Supplemental Argument #4: Ignoring Requests for Reasonable Accommodation or Refusing to Participate in an Interactive Process to Reconcile Process Accommodations Violates Due Process and Elevates These Matters to Constitutional Law Statement of Facts In this matter, a formal written request for reasonable accommodation was submitted to Collier County on April 29, 2025, ahead of a scheduled code enforcement hearing on May 2. The request specifically asked the County to pause enforcement actions—particularly a utility shutoff—to avoid irreparable harm to residents with disabilities who depend on electrically powered therapeutic equipment. Despite receiving this request, the County failed to respond, acknowledge, or initiate any interactive process prior to proceeding with the hearing and issuing recommendations to shut off power. During the hearing, the respondent, defendant, emphasized that the situation had changed materially and abruptly. He stated: "Forty-eight hours ago, we were told they're going to recommend that you turn off electricity. That completely changed everything. So / don't, I can't get a federal ADA attorney and a constitutional attorney in a 48-hour period and get them up to speed—it's impossible." • Timestamp: 30:05-30:20 He further explained: "We thought we were coming here to tell you how we were going to comply. That's why I'm here, getting the architects, engineers... But we were caught off in the last couple days with the threat of losing [electricity]." Timestamp: 31:09-31 :26 Additionally, Defendant noted that this failure mirrored a prior case in which the County similarly • ignored the reasonable accommodation process, stating: "The same failure in that case is now being repeated again. And that failure is the reasonable accommodation PROCESS."Timestamp: 26:20 Legal Framework Under both the ADA and FHA, public entities are legally required not only to provide reasonable accommodations where appropriate but also to participate in a good-faith interactive process upon receiving such requests. DOJ and HUD guidance make clear that this process must include timely communication, individualized consideration of the disability-related need, and collaborative exploration of feasible solutions. The failure to engage in this process—especially when enforcement proceeds in parallel—has been held by courts to constitute a constructive denial of accommodation, even in the absence of a formal rejection. Beyond statutory violations, failure to engage in the interactive process when significant property interests are at stake can give rise to constitutional due process violations. The U.S. Supreme Court in Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (1978), held that utility customers cannot be disconnected without adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. In Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2003), the Eleventh Circuit extended this principle to municipal code enforcement, ruling that tenants affected by condemnation were entitled to meaningful notice and a hearing. When disabilities are involved, the process that is "due" must necessarily include reasonable accommodations to account for disability-related limitations. If a public entity fails to engage in that process and proceeds with enforcement actions affecting housing or services—such as terminating utilities—it denies disabled individuals the opportunity to participate in their defense on equal terms, thereby compounding both statutory and constitutional violations. Argument The refusal to acknowledge or act upon a request for reasonable accommodation is not only a breach of the ADA and FHA—it is also a denial of constitutional due process. In this case, the County's decision to move forward with enforcement actions while completely ignoring a written accommodation request submitted three days prior to the hearing deprived the affected individuals of a meaningful opportunity to protect their rights. The respondent's inability to secure legal counsel with constitutional and federal expertise—due to the County's late disclosure of its intent to pursue a shutoff—further underscores the procedural unfairness at play. Defendant stated: "Forty-eight hours is not good enough... We wouldn't have had this conversation if this was just limited to permits." Due process demands more. According to the framework in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the process due in administrative actions depends on: (1) the private interest at stake; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation without additional safeguards; and (3) the government's interest. Here, the private interest—continued use of disability-related therapeutic equipment—is profound, the risk of irreparable harm is clear, and the burden on the County to pause enforcement for a short period to evaluate the accommodation request is minimal. The balance overwhelmingly favors more robust procedural protections. Conclusion By ignoring a valid, timely request for reasonable accommodation and refusing to engage in an interactive process, Collier County not only violated federal disability laws but also denied constitutionally protected procedural due process. This is not merely an issue of administrative oversight—it is a matter of constitutional magnitude. The sequence of events described by Defendant—the abrupt change in enforcement posture, the impossibility of securing qualified legal counsel in a 48-hour window, and the failure to pause enforcement in light of a known disability-related risk—illustrate how the County's actions fall short of both statutory obligations and constitutional guarantees. Collier County must correct its course. Going forward, any enforcement action that implicates housing, health, or essential services for individuals with disabilities must be paused upon receipt of a reasonable accommodation request. Failure to do so does not merely violate the ADA and FHA—it elevates the issue to one of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Until this process is implemented uniformly and reliably, affected individuals remain vulnerable to arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of their most basic rights. Supplemental Argument #5: Pro Se Representation and Due Process Violation Statement of Facts At the May 2, 2025 hearing, respondent defendant appeared without legal counsel, compelled to navigate intricate statutory and constitutional issues pro se. This predicament stemmed from Collier County's last-minute escalation: just 48 hours prior, the County announced its intent to recommend disconnecting electricity to a facility serving individuals with disabilities. Previously, the dispute had centered on routine code compliance, with remediation plans already in progress. The abrupt shift introduced complex civil rights and disability law issues. Despite Defendant's plea for more time, no procedural relief—such as a continuance or stay—was granted. Defendant articulated his dilemma on the record: "Forty-eight hours ago, we were told they're going to recommend that you turn off electricity. That completely changed everything. So I can't get a federal ADA attorney and a constitutional attorney in a 48-hour period and get them up to speed—it's impossible." • Timestamp: 30:05-30:20 The hearing proceeded without delay, despite a pending accommodation request, and the County offered no collaborative process to address the heightened stakes. Legal Framework The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause mandates a fair hearing, including sufficient time to prepare and, in some cases, access to counsel when significant rights are at risk. Federal disability laws, including the ADA and FHA, reinforce this by requiring meaningful participation for those representing disabled populations. In Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2003), the court ruled that code enforcement impacting housing stability triggers robust procedural safeguards. Similarly, Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981), suggests that due process may necessitate counsel in civil matters involving fundamental interests. Argument Collier County's refusal to grant a continuance after its 48-hour notice of a utility shutoff—a severe action threatening disabled residents—stripped Defendant of a fair chance to defend himself. This compressed timeline precluded securing counsel or mounting an informed defense on ADA and constitutional grounds. The magistrate's decision to proceed, ignoring the need for an interactive process, breached both due process and disability law obligations. The gravity of the interests here—housing and disability accommodations—mirrors those in Grayden and Lassiter, demanding enhanced protections. Conclusion Forcing Defendant to argue pro se under such constraints violated due process and equal access to justice, particularly given the disability context. The Court must rectify this procedural injustice and establish measures to ensure adequate preparation time in future cases involving vulnerable populations. Supplemental Argument#6: Collier County's Willful Violation of Federal Law Facts — In a different Code Case )number); From May to August 2024, defendant repeatedly sought a reasonable accommodation from Collier County for a group home under the FHA and ADA, via formal requests, emails, and mediation offers. The county responded with silence and persistent enforcement pressure. On October 1, 2024, Assistant County Attorney Tomasko offered to drop enforcement only if Defendant limited occupancy to six unrelated individuals—a cap violating federal law. CELU20240003149 Dear Mr. Green: The County's Code Enforcement Division understands that your client only has a maximum of six (6) residents at his facility currently and that will continue to be the case while the County works toward implementing a formal reasonable accommodation procedure. If you could confirm that fact, the County would agree to discontinue the open Code enforcement action and keep you in the loop as we implement a formal reasonable accommodation procedure protocol—at which time your client, of course, would be free to make such a request. Kindly advise if this is acceptable. Thank you kindly. Ronald T. Tomasko Assistant County Attorney Law The FHA (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)) and ADA (28 C.F.R. § 35.130) mandate accommodations in zoning laws for disabled individuals. Wounded Warriors (M.D. Fla. 2021) confirmed this duty for Collier County, requiring waivers for group homes. Ignoring the interactive process is a constructive denial (Roe v. Sugar River Mills, 820 F. Supp. 636). Argument Collier County willfully violated federal law: - It ignored Defendant's requests, notably a June 2024 email to the ADA Coordinator, while pursuing enforcement—constructive denial under Roe. - Tomasko's October ultimatum defied the Wounded Warriors precedent, proving intent to enforce illegal caps. - This pattern of avoidance and pressure shows a scheme to evade federal mandates. Litigation Stakes If unresolved, Defendant may sue for injunctive relief, compensatory damages (distress, costs, recovery harm), and punitive damages for willful misconduct (Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30). Conclusion The county must cease enforcement and comply, or face liability for deliberate discrimination. Supplemental Argument #7: Procedural Irregularities and the Appearance of Bias Statement of Facts At the May 2, 2025 hearing, defendant sought to contextualize permit violations by highlighting his innovative approach to substance abuse recovery. His explanations were constantly interrupted by Tom Landimarino, Director of Code Enforcement, who adopted a dismissive stance. Notable exchanges include: - Defendant described the domes as therapeutic innovations; Landimarino retorted, "You didn't get permits to build the structure," sidestepping their purpose. - Defendant asserted, "I'm an innovator... there's not a way to innovate with permits," to which Landimarino replied, "Then that's the point of the case today, sir. Not ADA, not the reasonable accommodation that you're discussing." The magistrate failed to curb these disruptions or foster a balanced dialogue, permitting a contentious and uneven proceeding. Legal Framework Quasi-judicial hearings must uphold fairness and neutrality under Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, which obligates magistrates to ensure decorum and equal opportunity for presentation. The U.S. Supreme Court in Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975), affirmed that procedural irregularities undermining impartiality can invalidate administrative outcomes. Argument The magistrate's inaction in the face of Landimarino's interruptions and combative tone compromised the hearing's integrity. By tolerating this behavior, the tribunal allowed Defendant's disability-related arguments to be marginalized, fostering an appearance of bias. This failure to maintain neutrality not only breached procedural norms but also hindered Defendant's ability to fully present his case, particularly on ADA and accommodation issues. Conclusion The unchecked procedural flaws and apparent bias during the hearing undermined its fairness. The Court should acknowledge these deficiencies and mandate a respectful, impartial process in future proceedings, especially where disability rights are implicated. Supplemental Argument #8: Innovation as a Protected Disability Accommodation Statement of Facts defendant developed an innovative recovery model, in part, using dome structures to offer affordable, community-based healing for individuals with substance abuse disabilities. At the May 2, 2025 hearing, he explained,Quote: "I'm an innovator... there's not a way to innovate with permits." Timestamp: 08:40-08:45 This underscoring how conventional permitting stifles iterative therapeutic design. These domes are central to his mission of addressing gaps in traditional recovery systems. Legal Framework The ADA and FHA mandate reasonable modifications to policies to prevent disability discrimination. In Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), the Supreme Court upheld community-based innovations as vital for equitable disability services, emphasizing flexibility in accommodating nontraditional methods. This regulation {28 CFR Section 35.130(d)} is commonly referred to as "the integration mandate:" A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Justice has defined the most integrated setting as "a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible." Argument Defendant's dome-based recovery program qualifies as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and FHA, aligning with Olmstead's vision of accessible, community-driven care. The County's inflexible permitting enforcement disregards this disability-related purpose, obstructing a protected treatment modality. Its refusal to explore compliance alternatives or engage in an interactive process violates federal law, prioritizing bureaucracy over equal access. Conclusion Defendant's innovation is a disability accommodation, not a mere eccentricity, and merits regulatory leeway. The Court should compel Collier County to adapt its policies to support such initiatives, ensuring they enhance—rather than impede—disability care and recovery. Supplemental Argument #9: False Assumptions About Intent Undermine the Legal Duty to Engage in the Reasonable Accommodation Process Statement of Facts Collier County has advanced an argument—implicitly and explicitly—that the respondent, defendant, is attempting to use the legal framework of reasonable accommodation as a sword rather than a shield. Specifically, the County's representatives and staff have suggested that the request for accommodation is a pretext for avoiding compliance with safety regulations and permitting law. During the May 2, 2025 hearing, Director of Code Enforcement Tom Landimarino stated: "Then that's the point of the case today, sir. Not ADA, not the reasonable accommodation that you're discussing." Timestamp: 08:13 These statements, in tone and substance, reflect a fundamental misapprehension of the law. The suggestion that procedural accommodation has no relevance to code enforcement is both factually and legally inaccurate, as detailed below. In response, Defendant repeatedly clarified his intent and actions: "We thought we were coming here to tell you how we were going to comply. That's why I'm here..." Timestamp: 31:09-31:12 "Forty-eight hours ago, we were told they're going to recommend that you turn off electricity. That completely changed everything." "So I can't get a federal ADA attorney and a constitutional attorney in a 48-hour period and get them up to speed—it's impossible." These statements establish: • A clear record of engagement with professionals (engineers, architects); • A sudden escalation by the County on short notice; • A good-faith but time-constrained effort to understand and respond to complex legal concerns involving disability rights. Moreover, Defendant explicitly stated the goal was to engage in the process, not to escape accountability: Tomasko: "There are no authorities whatsoever that support the proposition that you can utilize the ADA as a sword in defense of not having a permitted and inspected building." Timestamp: 25:08 Defendant: "That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to say there's a process to go through that is required, and I just want to go through the process." Tomasko: "As the co-director himself told you, if that were the case, they could have built the David Lawrence Center without permits... and we know that would be an absurd result." Timestamp: 25:25 Defendant: "I'm asking to meet with mediation... because this is a problem throughout the country." "The reasonable accommodation is the process. I just want the process." Tomasko: "As far as the county is concerned, right now that's a moot issue because there's no notice of violation that's being pursued." Timestamp: 17:51 Defendant: "The same failure in that case is now being repeated again. And that failure is the reasonable accommodation process." Legal Framework Under the ADA and FHA, a request for reasonable accommodation does not require pre-litigation justification. It requires the public entity to pause and engage in an interactive process. As the HUD/DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations (2004) states: "An interactive process must occur when a request for accommodation — is received. The individual requesting the accommodation does not need to use any specific language or provide detailed legal arguments." Supporting authority includes: • McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004): The denial of a procedural pause constituted unlawful discrimination under the ADA. • Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2003): Government processes must be modified to ensure disabled individuals have equal access to public benefits and hearings. • 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7): A public entity must modify procedures to avoid disability-based exclusion unless it can show fundamental alteration or undue burden. Argument The claim that respondent used the ADA "as a sword" is plainly rebutted by both the record and the conduct of the parties: • No evidence exists that the respondent sought to avoid permitting permanently. • The respondent's conduct—hiring architects, engineers, and electricians—reflects intent to comply. • The timing of the accommodation request (48 hours before the hearing) corresponds directly to the County's last-minute recommendation to cut power, which introduced immediate disability-related harm. • The respondent's language emphasizes process, not outcome: "I just want the process." Furthermore, the judge's decision to override the County's requested penalty and instead issue a 10-day compliance window is a tacit recognition that a reasonable accommodation was indeed appropriate. While this occurred during the hearing, the judge's action approximated the interactive process that should have occurred before enforcement began. Had the County paused upon receipt of the April 29 request, the identical outcome—securing an electrician's letter—would likely have been achieved without jeopardizing due process or ADA compliance. By dismissing the accommodation outright, the County not only violated statutory duty but effectively forced the tribunal itself to step in and do what it refused to: adapt enforcement procedures in light of disability-related considerations. _ Conclusion This case does not reflect an abuse of the ADA. It reflects the proper invocation of disability law to ensure a fair, process-driven path to compliance. Defendant did not seek to exempt himself from permitting. He sought time and dialogue—a right guaranteed under law. Just because the judge acted reasonably does not change the requirements of the law to participate in interactive dialogue before enforcement. The County cannot assert neutrality when: 1. It refused to engage in pre-hearing dialogue, 2. It pressed for immediate shutoff despite known disability concerns, and 3. It was overruled by the judge who provided the very accommodation they claimed was improper. Supplement #10: Reasonable accommodation is not about bypassing law—it is about ensuring access to it. _ The law requires dialogue before punishment. Collier County's failure to recognize that duty is not merely procedural error; it is a systemic rights violation with serious implications for due process and equal protection. Magistrate: "Somehow the argument you're making... is that you can go along and be unpermitted as long as you want because... it's a reasonable accommodation." Timestamp: 19:00 Defendant: "Your Honor, that's not at all what I'm saying. Magistrate: "Then, tell me what you're saying, because.." Defendant: I'm saying there's a reasonable accommodation process, which is, halts everything until you have that conversation, because we can't just simply enforce code': Timestamp: 19:08 Statement of Facts In this case, the code enforcement officer, Rick Migal, initially outlined a standard process for addressing unpermitted work, with no immediate mention of safety concerns. This was documented through multiple conversations with the respondent and others involved. The sudden recommendation from higher authorities to shut off electricity just 48 hours before the hearing, without any prior documented safety inspection, suggests inconsistency and a potential retaliatory motive. When the matter was brought before the judge, a 10-day window was granted for the respondent to provide a safety inspection letter, rather than enforcing the immediate power shutoff. This judicial decision is indicative of the lack of an urgent safety issue and reinforces that the County's actions were not justified by an immediate hazard. Legal Framework The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) mandate an interactive dialogue process for reasonable accommodation requests, even in the FF llil MN) IIII m ununiiniin�uuir icu— I. d ' (T' ' t _ N E D n® ' �_1 a 1"�+ > 08"'8 0 i s D P® e � Z�` y Z O D� a mJ = i �1 0 > �i; m e�i a Cn _ L�" ' J O N s g a J II1 2`i,',. E N ON A O+W rip eNyJ D ® N NN N N N1/IN N y IrlilTil ! ' P RII `P® igild ! 110m , ;,-,_. i ( - ! ,fiaL I= 11 n° ri e :r;:r: 1- 0 4 9ci .1 © ONo 6.4., 0 i. . e Im O OC 1`'1 a 3 gg � y € 45�E rn Ai z �i: i ill3da" r y : O = ____ ,1 -i— a © _ ® 0g 8 � 21, m' _ • a _ :� pa � A 5 II II I� _ 1 ; z ® ill a, . o _ ® ¢ ill 1 iPy MI /n o i O O_ O ilea _ a ® ` piq , e $ 5 � mp Nmr A =.,.>z.m,wm.rd,tr..N====r0.-a»-4-tow, ... ..,bey.,leas,. =.2.r.,. .. ..a= e..,.. 7.—=w s 'm' "' c .-m«,.,.,...,a--------- -- caller Place I D D D ti b g ,..- Suite m'"°'" Schmitt Residence SS'8o Vo'm �'", L®T U S HOPbS,90.1d0 3/103 N o o Guest house and Garage < ' -mmi . ;'aA. PH:12391 304-3041 2355 Heritage Trail, n m g n p W i =_ ..r ,, _ ARCHITECTURE Naples.Florida34112 ?�`°�,, N www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 K 11 ( l [IF 71 Z ! izi111 z t mi 11111 gD O 4 m im Z t O Z m g D Z 1"1 .. 1..1 .. ,.. 1 N.. '-� ri i z k D T Z 1J1- ; 11 t till—T ig o ; 17 I .. I .; 3 — m in "` tt — 0 11 "i I a. ; g m t- x , g g Vl .i i . if f. IN. i ,r-pr Z 04 Z .-, ' X R z IL t g ` ® H >4 { • NW i •H Of,{ N N I C. X Ei ® IF rs _ I ,. l .. I .. I .,. l .. I V, I I w+ I 8 Collier Place I I) 1> = 30316 m1,°'" Schmitt Residence 8�R?sg m yN SuiteCO3 316 m m i: L®T U Naples.Florida 3903 Guest house and Garage 0 a" 7< PH:1239f 304304I 46-1 i , 06/ ; ARCHITECTURE 2355 Heritage Traa. 8" 8.80 0 =----- Naples,Florida 34112 ?Z www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 , i e 1C D gD 1; m x m '1 r m C) - m Ei 0 itt C) m F z $ G) e m r z f' t F Ca +--ir.......,-I• nari nr^imirilr�u ..__.. L'il rn 1 IL ... I1 . e z " , a m armnm7 „nruri :_::::-_-: e z 1 lI m M 4� q T SIT SI TLilc112o .7ll 7f 1.,.:111E if MITZ� j e T C) r 1 1' !\,41 EtT,„„„„„„ i z t 71 W nenL Tun 1mmc_ri_m� iLz c e 4 A Z cO d U Q �•j e 0 n a ,,, __ Coder Place! , D D D R, 9; ¢# L®T U S 3003 amain a�N. Schmitt Residence 8_ y m w Y 3003 316 N= \"0-- � °c o 0o rn ; Naples.Ronda 34103 Guest house and Garage 1 m r $ : PH:(2391 3043047 8 0_ U1� _ .._..;;:a/gf ARCHITECTURE 2355HeritageTrail, 8a 8.8^o =--.,• www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 Naples.Florida 34112 v z q 9LLi Ni e 9 g �0 q xN a a m Icy s I E1 a ` D m / 4 : W p { O s \.k m I r D Z . .. N.,, , , , . . . . liN..�mnmmmzzasszmmmm mmmaznmmmmmszsmummosn a N• , e > ( . w. « z a x,a •mmmm....mnsmmm .. .�. V f a 8 e. m 4 = u" O 44 m I Mil! III 1111ii a€ 15 91111 g o li III 4 � a A • `s 1 lig 0 q, a lip14 0, 1 ,5•: as5 c0 a 4941 i. g �44 ig N 5 A A = ;s;shed m ore 01R� = P�� EOPE a p e CcHer Place I D D D. ° m ,,'y'i✓ 3003 Tamiaml'Mai N. N _ L®T U S NSuite316 Schmitt Residence a g m T '1 � ;''°` ' Naples.Florida 3a103 Guest house and Garage r @ = PH:1239130a-3061 Y a'Y Cr M 1,f,i is ARCHITECTURE 2355HeritageTrail, gA, 3 p } = "'P www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 Naples,Florida 34112 g 5 N y 1 .. r.l I 1 1 li ! ITT r.- 1 L ., 11 1 ti. • ass• ® r-r x �' Eli- ® 5-▪ 6 �, - ® al II mm ,m p � .1 -� I ---- '.m V -I ® Z Mir r w a_ r I ..per ,if I G0 ,ifI r m i 1 i cn m IIIIIIII — 0 -ti. 0 = 11:1;Et=— „,-- —,-,.=,,7..E _■:- __: 11111111 ■_= 1 U ID :-�:�-_ —_ �— is=:=ems 1- i MLitta -:_ - --_ 0 I --- ( PE OZ '''�� O !iIIIIi�'- o ~ o- m ri ra _ q, 4aL;i1III #J .m ® Nmm _- ; D 11 L' _■ r� z .- f F.I :j:pr -fL'---,---.------ 0 it p- 1 I It! •i i i jr 1• r 1 r-r l I .. 1 -.__ aa�rmPlace! D D D_€ L®T U S 3003 316 rcal N. N .�. m ;�d��• _ 3003316 Schmitt Residence P� 8o m S f l i - o`. . Naples.Hackle 34103 -_ N a < � m ; �• PH: �4-3041 Guest house and Garage � �„ J M ; 1;:., ARCHITECTURE 2355HeritageTrail, n l„ o 0 • �i.f.'',�' Naples,Florida 34112 ?Z www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 I 1 .. i.f ila it 1 I 1 I r -H , lasge �tie==ice= o -I'll; 11 Eriiow •.• M o 41 ; 1i s_ =I€ _ 1 D 1 R IF -'a i 1a I a 1 1SE m i\ y'■' — 1 o �� T 1 1IIIIIIIIIII13 (f, . / .. rt .Y1 1H1 \ ' r S 'M !w i ==e 1 \ 1 !l ' I1IIIIIIF i \i. i \ izz 1 \ i I 1 �i1=:a0i o e r=a ■ �r ..1..1 u- 11.. ._U'I 1 I - .< *iLs • € It t I VT p co .,=&-., .-,m,d_ar..�a *^m. d am =ten==...»=,.-.- .,e . >,M .=, _.�;. ....,.. ,--- -...,-,,-- ...... - 0 4CoMes Place' D D D 9 S 316'°""°'" Schmitt Residence go g Rs A I= W ! 'T !. L®TUSNgN o Naples,FloridaRoritla 34103 m Guest house and Garage m PH:(2391 304-304187 g g o p Oo g - ;_,, �, ;:. ARCHITECTURE 2355 Heritage Trail, n www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 Naples,Florida 34112 I ,ti 11 1 11/1 1 .1:4 4 II*Pg1 g Via, • 11 .............................................. lL a € lB I i °8 . D 1/ [i \z ti r � r D s ZD peg L m so j 1 11 i 1 1 IIA �� Via, ,.1 g�� q H 41 D I. lijfl J :I Fm 3 K° r°, p21 ) —D D I. O :• Si 41 o13 a eM s , .. ➢ r 41' 0 O "p....a..o...Tt='V a.,r.tnarodr...m.I`V.`a'"rg=tga" ffg ",.:°=Tlg7. ,, ,.,�`".T.=g" .tgg:w....m.ro..d:a"'r «a=..,t..Lr:rt Mr v.R M.,''""r'°"*".. .,.. _ L®TUS Collet Suite iami°mi Tr°i N. bc D D �' Napl 316 es. Schmitt Residence g�go gn m ; ' "°P'° Florida034103 Guest house and Garage ti m IA PH:1239)304-3041 8z 8z P `p-i g 1 <_ .. . i ARCHITECTURE 2355HeritageTrail, 23o 8„88 0 ---•., www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 Naples,Florida 34112 •, . ' z ................ .. ..,..,,. : ,...;.,.,,,, ||§!|||!|||!!|!§ !; ||||!1111§§|■111R |||;■;;;;;;;|;||;■ | |! wwv% . ®� w., ;;;;27KKKK�;;;;; Z| aig1\\:& ; 41w4;;„�;2| . i ;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;; § g i:g.g.g.g.g.wg. ; w�;; g.g.g.w;;§ z z /0e s HOOd0 06■„B00B §t• \ o,, , , , , , , , , , II , , ,,d;§ \ r |||| |r V1 \ M ill|| ll|| | )) \ z ? !!!4�!!!�!!;4!!l�,• \ ' 1 7) o ° |||§§|| | |§ ||§|��|`§ z XI 8 cri 9 ` / z Im | \ \ § § �5 ~ g h, ,Pi R.6.� `& ` h § O § i o ' |§ \ lo %§ |h§m|/hh ` _ g P | § . \ ! ® i > ram' w="«» « �_ > a_ . ormr _.___,___ ` t3 y ItT : r «\ �, oU Schmittens Residence > > > ! ¥ eeee2,�] GuenuseokceA �/°8 I/ _�T $ \� § | AA2&027 es.Florida 34112 IP�iig� (Q F ��- �%iE3 gR li�•e�n��$'aS S),o � _S T siY-p ST � �, l i iiig 9 ii i 6F99i Si! 3 Pg ^i SItritL'�'llir iv I li g^ lilli-El 9! 3 tS6`l i T R 1�Pa 9g`S--a.,,i ii �- � S4 •f a6•V_8'i�3gv t96Y 9r at- VP:1i. 3ie kL S VItEg s;"I sflgil q "141 S7g�zgs4411 —1 1,$4 :g Fg m dal $1 urgir 'tgi;f2 A;i111 !(rialilrg111F(11,s a� iii Istwi all C m 9I. 4 9 g4�a' s1`4} � s r" --!; � 3(3iisi}atsia [gz a Ei -�'Qy"g !'!°!El m .` g 8. Ws . 1 s ,i Ii p;:j3. $N3i,4 e -e giQiag o s gg g ! 11 !' ' gg fF sg.li, a!i}tL..!.,11 p !e i 1 fa ct 1'ac 3^ 1.11. 6 vl $ i : s A F. g A9S o , s it al Ig!Y4 -1412ra '-if F S S g i oa i°°. 19 it w C %47 • i / \ q:!1 a API O hPid �' ri i~iil liS 4 € F� Ay g i g � Era f Rg ` m 1 1 11111 9E [Q N\ 1 �G R fig 0. ® el ;6 s P �� ,•, g @ _ a 7. 8 lige-ITN:9;1m 1 IV ,,-._ I• Y1Sg 40 g gim 1 , A 1 i ':'I. -\ li i ill ; 1E is q g11g \ ,� - ,;, PI€ w k F 1 P gA €I331 g 1 sa a 8 ay g 4 E® ® s , R%63 g -- N . .,...,....t..r.. ...b...,,e . .`a z...-..:$t ;..°��.,a....o .;,. --,=_......=,.a�.,.m�...��..b„wgar---.. :6'".T' .�,K�.. ...,oc . ,,.'..��.,,,.,..,�'""°''.'�'. m o - o L®T U S cdfe3 Noel m ;r :.----_ CoIk.Io eI = W Naples.Flierido Schmitt Residence g&go gc Na lei.Roriya 34103 ' ' Guest house and Garage PH:123913043041 'a'z o- oZ F M ►�" B ... ';;:�' ARCHITECTURE 23ssNB�ra9arrall, IN I8 O 8 , = www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 Naples,Florida 34112 a y xi r 41E 7.. P $� 0 � P \, �a• o %i4\ $ D O \\z ., ,t: = Z a Z /\d \\J U 04,151111 In PH ♦--ter 6• �`�/, gi-- 1,:i .0 ... II 3 2E - 9 P„„ 2 T. _1 D I\\' py g� t� xA3 D D 9 R 1 zb 1[t"1 4! mr t; r '.. I c5 n0'p fir• O r-1.I. t 0'. m Isoag G • i D a a<• a ��3t q ° \�\`��\�� ;fit §a 3 F. m> �``ii```\ .fir : ill @ ``i\\i``i 11 t ad p. a z p`.4:,�. cn ce. m isA•& i r-T1 .J0 ^An z nile__ 'y!Fl" 3 z p\ice• r us • IL gb - -.'` QEF$° 0ritlp L 9 H 11 Sr i 4 4g1g 7,3 v M ' 9pF 2 Q C, O 144141 r r*1 4g 4' g H m ► m 5y� t m D •2 '.4 Z 11� : og'(' -n q Al �� 1! cn p •� can R •ga ! 0 In BOG\% n,Y` 0i,ru.:.� i f. G ❑ i /i ,=j IUI A :$ '' ;, rMilli NytIC mo"; „ A I ris.! : m 7 J oe" D '€ a: : .g3 1-4: 4 g -04 P w ' v ,,,"" _ Cofer Place i D D '�' m 3003 r Floce 1'Poi N. ✓f +�, LCTUS Sulfa 316 Schmitt Residence a Naples,Roddo 34103 t m � �' Guest house and Garage �. k f PH:1239)304-3041 a' 8-21 0 f�..' ;;,°, ' ARCHITECTURE 2355Hari}ageTrail. 8o 8.8S 0 N www.LOTUSarchitecture.corn AA26001786 Naples,Florida 34112 9 , 9 y i- €^ Nil=.; 0 n V 'SE kiTTIEUMEUMUMBh O mi� S i !ill • k$ i Ifilimmommunn ° n Wig' 's T Q1111 R A c m 3 m �° o„ (.1 CrE ii i i,ii i :3 0 v 10 lmao 9Z him • ] D 17~3 f b _ ?, to e2 Z Y m -1 y�cil :pg. U, x 2 my g ( F1 ) 1itRin iNK a �� fg utg �m Sa as ,a x� m m e n F s= "E -1 gr= gs p ar `E.4 fi ` 'se c: 1.36^ a hi R. 9 caGGCCccF ATCE h:;1E p a e a,, 1 as '$ " [€ai 81 a Et ,Z: h cg 11=1 _ S ai 32. `a po, p gs3' a 1 ,l _ m SSrggg3 m 33a N r D 0 m texstt#26attw ersyixatstw. - : D m :&�cf? �efkG &E3 ilk ' "a $k'7 el Y88'Y m a \ i'?rga1 g d 3 -. D j lg X= +za u , rw�s �rtgs�xeera lx,;;:::� m �s 3 iiiE a Cn q 8° _s vYt9S4 E6 W,851CC t4Eytl tr q'E 4 t hi III i q§>8F.m1 qZ � s cg 1 Z C 'i38 € [,��.rs ��.tir,�alrUti 11 :. -a- - - 2 U a; Z oaf 6 �B SrB s�ba 8>s w i�g as- — 0 So' E ,, ' -i Collier Pbce) D D D T m ,* - L e T U S 3003r PlacelTr,N. _ ;' '�' , Suite316 Schmitt Residence gn g g� T Howes.RaIHa 34103 r.>g :_'R. i Guest house and Garage �� C44 T G PH:(239)304-3041 7 9' 2 to B �_'�E� --- INaples,Florida 34112 . °OZ www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 Ilmi F m ; e P ..1. '11g;i Vrill i/ l 11+F dip i' Fyg�$�_ iI45? A rrl m N veil 11 I!!! � 111111111 l,x€= #.11; I =gin} [E 1 9 j" if eas o W o if Pi 0;711 itF.: Si ?i9 m S= 8 m 9 7 1i 38127 F i • _a d y e 3� Itcq Figg B' : i gV l 7! 17; ;had iF Vl�i C of 111 I i s 02 w.111, a i z� oo� F. 99 oL 0 AS Ili ill 1 } i a $iii1j" -10 _I 11 : 7 a i5 g ; i s> e o z c z f JI] C. ! 606il �_'z a, 6. p 1 1 z t[ 1• a x cn Eli i if 1?: 6' " P P : 4 g a 1!H PUT f s g 6 11181 I 11 1 � ; fig: — 1i 12967 Ef 1 Miig i k^�i'j�� Ili III4 I $,, � a °b� k`P'S A /Fl df gli�5 need C ��i��gata [If �L I i f x1 ! 1 81 ill r fr 1, � 9 F�y% iga1 14 ®��cr:r�{ iy+9 dQ °' _°•g. 1 C '1 i L 11 7 p i Six} !, nil 4 . i '; 1 - 41 i MI 1- P MT1111 4 P ' No ME Ell 'Mir 1 ; i ; Iv I i o 141 i YqEI1 ' I1 .. i iF �IJ !J � / ,, g I%% I Hi s 4 ;`s3a III gl aag <g g dllrg� m lip-'� aq ! • Grp II _ Ii "P is I! ig i Aiim m y3333i F1 i I $ iL L—.I ..., � - 1±'---zli - _ i.,1C 4NP 5 isl'iri'll'ghBR 11. 27i - ` 1 2 { !F 'a rilfP242a g gs'/a F9 1i s83 33, •1 1 %5 ; gz i l a - i 1 10 1' /Fi r LIN ( 11 `r. a 3 o y j g ^l2 1:I 1/1 4r! 5� !i / i Qs1I g iIg IME cn i o .----- corer Mace 1 D D D lt �= t ��A� L®T U S 30�om10 Schmitt Residence ''' �'' i ��et 4F Suite 316 '$o 1 fll Napes,Floridaritl34107 �,,x, Guest house and Garage i, PH:1939)304-3041 `Z'a'i 7 F g o. .*.0 i_ ARCHITECTURE 235es,Floagehai1 �5 °9 o www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 Naples,Florida 34112 a Z 11 1 i 1 P D 0 9 D 4m $.4& r w m r 5 f ' aw D r- m.L El'------1 -S1 ,,/ D ;.. 4 k i5 E_? 4 4 N, \/ @ j \ / \./ i:illi!! ilii'll � r8ilt f—%/\ i q=c0' mz f RI sr � C Tntn ~ f'� -G'o 9 '� P° TO If °a' I F m Ia 9 }p�--I a %ma y � rf Ai - a8 ma's11 ■ d Ad ^m r2d rn 11 _ f � --I Z9 -- -as 1 f ,`se a °e�' q q A 1 '' II 6• n �€ > D I ; a -- 1 1;, s 1 14 a D pir s e ? / 'a Y. z : 3 s �: \ ; 11 '� b ,,.__4a;�- Ilgilg d1E5 pip a9 - _ R u Fligill 1 11 lida 110:Xg1q I14 I.ma60i} . CO• 99MI9111s 121 8�0®®YI [a1I -\ Eli] L o -, 0Oorrm-- 1s 1111S1 e411 11e < 5 %iii l`s€;€111111111a1111 g1,=��k ax III mx rn m§ ` g g aPo 14 i g €4gig Flig 1 4 §gsyl ,, § t o r o „ con«�ooei D D D cn , m ;a.? �: C 3co3 rom�or�rroa N. ksJ_ ,f 'o L T U J Suite aples, Schmitt Residence gc �O gc A Naples,Rotltla 3A103 '� 1 ,� ;r. 4 Gvest house and Garage u al f ,rw 1 PH:(239)3043041 7 A 7_n _ ,.. ; ARCHITECTURE 2355 Heritage Trail, ` Naples.Florida 34112 8< a ZO www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 ! i ;! ii ! ;; 7 t 10111 55 e¢ 15 11 i a F ;; d'i _ g1 e3 ai °l �"€0 9 6 r� p v I` n1 Fi i 6 9 € 3 �a - •3 9 Fiiift °1 aia el I 1lI 1tg E H 30g €;iei Li i i I m i!°.! sa sd @ i 1e ; i a a0 go s i. fllfl g,i g !.l8kl Ii 11 f {f g5 J 9 i. :1 pii i ' A A sib 5a.€ Al i i € II,ig e3 I Eg H t i ` 91 , g 1 i i i 3 1111 / AA iii .1 T +°ic19 i. a� 11 E 9 a 1s i1 it rsA d ° 4 i1 ascc € 9a 3 i,E d 11 a1 3 I g; € ! ! 6 6 I d 1 '51 ¢ 1a e s ' 1 i.to 1 I € 51 51 E 1 � 5 ig 85 5 a 111d to 1 m €N Ei @ is g iII!III; IJI A € i s€ 9 iy ! ggI i ji g e i t € 1 7 "b 1� i 1 gal i 11; 01a� i1 a .F ' g- F g9€ 1F i 3 i 9 9 pi F € € {ce Pj - i s bil pry. i° f, ii r {9� !aa Siy� iE g g'�y ''i�i 61108 9 1€ E: j a!iaF ° 8q 1 il d 11� lie a € 1 h i 5as,` , a as s9 d Pi zi al 1 11 a .al g,s I a n 9Eg ill p i I � ! gelii €a .i �c�9 i3 a 1 €i I Fi I li € i a €1 gZ¢ 8 Ell 1 d 3Fa! 9 sl d bgNi �ee € 1 ei i a 9e �6 1 a� [IF� i FP 9 1� 9; �1 C �3df FS � s f1' � S 4� F � � � 1 ?i ¢s Eli WI 1 1 p ° i i € § g € °i" y i3 .r. l €5 .# Aii51HI! •p 1.11 A. R ill lip 5 € i .1 e i 1p� 1gt if 11 a 1a1i 0 s l ag 3 5g ; F 1 $ @ : a €Ilo a 11j 1 Ei `i , lg 9 E1 i1°e 13 d "g ce`€ 3E 1 l 1' 1 l i illa 5' ' Ili 4 1A. 1 . g 5 5a 999 i e i is 1a F 3 °E id it 3 1 ai g 1 ig i 5 9 a F11 € a8l1d � dli a: a ¢aee : gEs g 9Ggp1 ails Frig �l�� tl Qq 9 ii € ', 9j g i 11 i ¢a i a Q 3 E n L i 1a a E, F`9. n o ri 11 j i a a fib 1 I11 > 11 " 3Gi HI Vigil lgid 41 ! eO III 1 D i!g it ° 13p5p 1° ilvA 'I8 ! io 1 I i c E3 " 1 a D0 1t1 j t rH" 1g s i 1 Irv, np I . 1 a if 35 i i 1 n 11 the 1 i q [1 p i. a $ 3 E GP R a C P Voll Ff i p 4 11 i1 g p V o bn ..... ---a-$tw` � .ae ., ,:,-=o.z_"c-:adner..Poaace.l .=.,..zm w:.-,:=7.=4'S eeTgz-i�Ar..zm. ,. -------o -----.o D I> I> Suite 316 n no , C 3003 ra Mam r o1H NoPb.Florida 34103 Schmitt Residence Guest house and Garage N �o? ` <) 1 ?a u2_1 m q PH:1239)304-30.1 2355 Heritage Trail, �o 8mqaoN - ':\, 1.$1' ARCHITECTURE Naples.Florida 34112 ❑ ZL www.LOTUSarchitecture.com AA26001786 *** INSTR 5755527 OR 5664 PG 3860 RECORDED 8/20/2019 4:29 PM PAGES 1 *** CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Doc@.70 $0.70 REC $10.00 CONS $10.00 Parcel ID Number:00402000006 WARRANTY DEED This instrument made this 5th day of August,5,2019 A.D.,between Daniel A.Schmitt,a married man,whose address is 396 Yucca Rd., Naples,FL 34102 of the County of Collier,State of Florida,grantor,and 2355 Heritage Trail,LLC,a Limited Liability Company whose address is 1141 S.7t"Street,St.Louis,MO 63104 of the County of Collier,State of Florida,grantee. Witnesseth that the G or forand in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars and Other Good3apeValuable Consideration,in hand paid by the Grantee,receipt whireo,isher by acknowledged,has granted, bargained and sold to the Grantee anGrantee's heirs and assigns forever,the following described to situate,lying and being in the County of Collier,State of Florida to The South Y of Southeast 3:of the Southeast'''A of the Northeast X,Section 7,Township SO South,Bangs 26 East,Collier County, Florida,TOGHETHER WITH a nonexclusive ear ent for ingress and egress for the benefit of the above described parcel and,across the East sixty(60) feet of the Northeast Y.of Section 7,Township 50 3pttth,i{ange 26 East,Collier County,Florida;LESS the North seventy-five(75)Met thegiof;and LESS the South Y:of the Southeast Y.of the Southeast Y.of tbgJi1prthgast Y.of Section 7, Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County, t The Property herein conveyed does not constitute t 940rest ad property of the grantor. and the Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land,and4efe the same against lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. In Witness Whereof,the grantor has hereunto set his hand and a e day air /., year first above written. Signed,sealed eliv din o r e c . c's ,,`` Printed Name CI F., (�rtiuCS Daniel A.Schmitt • „ Witness ` fr Pr ted Name �� -r,L ) fitness State of Missouri County of St.Louis !' The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 5t"day of August, v :' 2019 by Daniel A.Schmitt,who is personally known to me. (AJJAL6-eL �pe�ILQ�a,T Printed Name: I e_4I Kct-itpes NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: IEISAKALLAS This Document has been ;0 MyCorrwikelonExpires Prepared without =r :•. P.bni^y 17r Opinion of Title 5E ��'W .M ".4#.1W COMMIIl1 14792703 akterscromet Report Title: Code Case Details F.1 Date: 3/5/2026 2:54:56 PM Case Number: CESD20250000741 Case Number: CESD20250000741 Status: Open Case Type: Site Development Date&Time Entered: 1/21/2025 11:07:21 AM Priority: Normal Entered By: Rickey.Migal Inspector: Charles.Marinos Case Disposition: Case Pending Jurisdiction: Collier County Code Enforcement Origin: Field Observation Detail Description: Several unpermitted structures, including a pergola, Geodesic domes, and unpermitted improvements including partioned walls, plumbing and electric inside a large metal building (the shell of the building is permitted). Location Comments: 6158 Sea Grass LN https://www.dome-wellness.com/ Address 6158 Sea Grass LN, Naples Property 38222520000 Property Owner 6158 SEA GRASS LANE LLC Business Management& Budget Office 1 F.2 Code Case Details Execution Date 3/5/2026 2:54:56 PM Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Verify Complainant Charles.Marin 1/21/2025 1/21/2025 Not os Required CE Case Research Rickey.Migal 1/21/2025 1/21/2025 Complete This case was opened while conducting onsite investigation for case CEOCC20250000600 Initial Inspection Rickey.Migal 1/21/2025 1/21/2025 Incomplete MigalRickey 01/21/2025 11:18 AM-Site Visit -Met with principle from LLC that owns property, Dan Schmitt(314-580-1316). He signed an entry consent form and escorted me to the rear of the property.Observed several structures, including a pergola,three Geodesic domes,and outdoor kitchen.Also inspected the interior of the large metal building and witnessed partitioned walls, stairs, a second floor loft, a bathroom, and other plumbing and electrical improvements. None of these are part of the original permit for the metal building.Will prepare zoning and building determinations. CE Staff Review Rickey.Migal 1/31/2025 1/31/2025 Complete MigalRickey 01/31/2025 2:30 PM-Prepared and presented building determination. Saved into case Docs. CE Staff Review Donna.Gentsc 1/31/2025 1/31/2025 Complete Attached CESD20250000741 Violation h Determination Initial Inspection Follow-up Rickey.Migal 3/13/2025 3/13/2025 Violation(s) MigalRickey 03/13/2025 7:37 AM-building Found determination received on 1/31/25 confirms that multiple permits are needed. For the metal building, items not covered in the original build permit will need permits,such as electrical, bplumbing, HVAC, interior buildout, etc.The 6-foot plastic fence needs a permit, the wood deck, the outdoor kitcuen and pergola,the geodesic domes and all plumbing electrical to them. NOV will be issued. Attach Picture(s) Rickey.Migal 3/13/2025 3/13/2025 Complete Generate Notice of Violation Rickey.Migal 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 Complete Record Violations Rickey.Migal 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 Complete Personal Service Attempt Rickey.Migal 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 Incomplete Business Management& Budget Office 2 F.3 Code Case Details Execution Date 3/5/2026 2:54:56 PM Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments CE Mailing Donna.Gentsc 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 Complete Please mail NOV both reg and cert h Mailed NOV to Owner reg&cert 9589 0710 5270 0003 9751 97 dg CESD20250000741 NOV RM 6158 SEA GRASS LANE LLC 396 YUCCA RD NAPLES, FL 34102 Mailed NOV to Agent reg&cert 9589 0710 5270 0003 9752 03 CESD20250000741 NOV RM DANIEL A. SCHMITT 396 YUCCA RD. NAPLES, FL 34102 Post Courthouse Rickey.Migal 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 Complete Post Property Rickey.Migal 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 Complete Affidavit of Service/Posting Rickey.Migal 3/14/2025 3/14/2025 Complete CE Staff Review Donna.Gentsc 3/14/2025 3/19/2025 Complete Attached CESD20250000741 AOP h CE Staff Review Donna.Gentsc 3/14/2025 3/19/2025 Complete Attached CESD20250000741 AOM h CE Phone Call Rickey.Migal 4/7/2025 4/7/2025 Complete MigalRickey 04/07/2025 1:39 PM-received call from property owner Dan Schmitt(314- 580-1316). He has hired AUC Consultants for permits and a GC(not named). He is looking for an architect. He is cognizant of his NOV deadline, and is asking for additional time to gather his team and work on the permits. He is also concerned about the zoning case and wants to have a meeting with someone from Zoning to hash out what he is doing vs. permitted uses on residential/estates zoned lots. He will be contacting Zoning this week. I explained that I can spoon-feed him a little more time, but that he will need to go to a CEB hearing to ask for the total time needed to complete the permit process, as Code cannot give him more than a couple of additional weeks without permits being applied for. Re-Inspection Rickey.Migal 4/11/2025 4/11/2025 Requires MigalRickey 04/11/2025 2:52 PM-No permits Hearing on file. Violation remains. Case will be prepared for hearing. Assign Hearing Type Rickey.Migal 4/11/2025 4/11/2025 Special Magistrate Hearing CE Supervisor Review(SM) BradleyHolme 4/11/2025 4/11/2025 Complete 4-11-2025 Hearing Packet reviewed and s submitted to JL34. BH91 Schedule Case for Hearing Miriam.Lorenz 4/12/2025 4/14/2025 Complete Case scheduled for the May 2,2025, OSM ° hearing./ML CE Legal Review Ietourneauj 4/12/2025 4/12/2025 Schedule viewed the packet for SM/CEB Generate Hearing Notice(CE) Miriam.Lorenz 4/14/2025 4/14/2025 Complete 0 Business Management& Budget Office 3 F.4 Code Case Details Execution Date 3/5/2026 2:54:56 PM Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Hearing Notice Service/Posting Rickey.Migal 4/14/2025 4/14/2025 Complete Last day to post is April 14,2025./ML CE Mailing Miriam.Lorenz 4/14/2025 4/14/2025 Complete NOH for the May 2,2025, OSM Hearing ° mailed regular and evidence packet mailed certified./ML CE Staff Review Danielle.Dijan 4/14/2025 4/14/2025 Complete Notarized AOM attached (AOP not available) 4/14/2025/DD Affidavit of Service/Posting Rickey.Migal 4/14/2025 4/14/2025 Complete Not Applicable Rickey.Migal 4/14/2025 4/14/2025 Not Required CE Staff Review Danielle.Dijan 4/16/2025 4/16/2025 Complete Notarized AOM_AOP attached 4/16/2025/ DD CE Phone Call Rickey.Migal 4/16/2025 4/16/2025 Complete MigalRickey 04/16/2025 12:48 PM-spoke to Dan Schmitt. Explained the hearing process and offered him a Stipulation Agreement. He is meeting on 4/17/25 with his permitting consultant,will discuss the stipulation with her, and call me with his decision. Not Applicable Rickey.Migal 4/16/2025 4/16/2025 Not Required CE Staff Review Donna.Gentsc 4/22/2025 4/22/2025 Complete Green card NOV to Owner returned 4/21/25 h 9589 0710 5270 0003 9751 97 Pre Hearing Inspection Rickey.Migal 5/1/2025 5/5/2025 Complete MigalRickey 05/05/2025 6:14 PM-no permits pulled. Violation remains. Record Hearing Results Miriam.Lorenz 5/5/2025 5/6/2025 Complete 5-2-25 Respondents Dan Schmitt, Owner was ° present, also Andrew Hill, Contractor and Jennifer Schmitt, owner's wife were present, The Special Magistrate found the Respondent in Violation and ordered to abate the violation by:Shut off all unpermitted electrical power sources to the metal building and to geodesic domes, and it is to remain off until such electrical work is addressed with a valid building or demolition permit and related inspections within (10 days)May 12,2025,of this hearing or a fine of$200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated,and Obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s)or Demolition Permit, inspections, and Certificate of Completion/Occupancy for the pergola and geodesic dome structures, and interior improvements to a permitted metal building, including partition walls, bathroom, mezzanine with stairs, plumbing, electric and septic within(90 days)July 31, 2025, of this hearing or a fine of$200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated.Also, Respondnet is ordered to pay operational costs of$111.70 incurred in the prosecution of this case to be paid on or before(30 days)June 1, 2025./ML CE Staff Review BradleyHolme 5/8/2025 5/8/2025 Complete 5-8-2025 Email response sent to the property s owner. Clarified requirements for the electrical inspection letter and provided a digital copy of the code case detail report. BH91 Business Management& Budget Office 4 F.5 Code Case Details Execution Date 3/5/2026 2:54:56 PM Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments CE Staff Review Donna.Gentsc 5/9/2025 5/9/2025 Complete Contractor,Andrew Hill, came into GM and h provided the electrical inspection document. I scanned it into the case. CE Mailing Danielle.Dijan 5/12/2025 5/12/2025 Complete OSM 5/2/2025 FF Order mailed to respondent /DD Not Applicable Rickey.Migal 5/12/2025 5/12/2025 Not Required Not Applicable Rickey.Migal 5/12/2025 5/12/2025 Not Required Not Applicable Rickey.Migal 5/12/2025 5/12/2025 Not Required Not Applicable Rickey.Migal 5/12/2025 5/12/2025 Not Required Not Applicable Rickey.Migal 5/12/2025 5/12/2025 Not Required Post Hearing Re-Inspection Rickey.Migal 5/13/2025 5/12/2025 Non- MigalRickey 05/12/2025 4:43 PM-received a Compliant Compliance Letter from Design Electric, Inc, stating that the electrical in the Metal Building, Geodesic Domes and Pergola area have beenfound to meet current safety standards. A copy of the letter and an Affidavit of Partial Compliance were saved into case docs. CE Meeting Rickey.Migal 5/16/2025 5/16/2025 Complete MigalRickey 05/16/2025 1:38 PM- Investigator Lynch and I met with property owner Dan Schmidt on the property. He presented and explained a concept he calls "Confidential Accommodation",wherein he can obtain the necessary approvals to run his rehab facility from this property without the burden of public hearings. He is drafting an outline that he asked me to present to the County Lawyers, and will email it to me on Monday, 5/19/25. His intent is not to in any way usurp this permit-based case, but to address him being allowed to continue to offer wellness and healing services on this property. CE Staff Review Donna.Gentsc 5/20/2025 5/20/2025 Complete Green card NOV to Agent returned 5/20/25 h 9589 0710 5270 0003 9752 03(unclaimed) Generate Hearing Results Notice Miriam.Lorenz 5/31/2025 5/19/2025 Complete Recorded 5/14/25 OR 6468 PG 2131./ML (CE) o 5/12/25 Scanned &attached FF Order(not recorded)from the May 2,2025, OSM Hearing and sent Order to be recorded—HB Schedule Case for Hearing Danielle.Dijan 7/1/2025 7/7/2025 Complete Case scheduled for August 1,2025 OSM EOT Hearing/DD Re-Inspection Rickey.Migal 7/2/2025 7/2/2025 Non- MigalRickey 07/02/2025 10:04 AM-plumbing, Compliant electric and building permits have not been applied for as of today's date. Spoke to contractor Andrew Hill (239-825-9530)who, after some discussion,acknowledged that the July 31st deadline from the previous order will not be met. Per my request, he sent me an email asking for an Extension of Time hearing,which will be granted for the 8/1/25 OSM hearing. A copy of the email has been saved into the case docs. Business Management& Budget Office 5 F.6 Code Case Details Execution Date 3/5/2026 2:54:56 PM Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Generate Hearing Notice(CE) Danielle.Dijan 7/7/2025 7/7/2025 Complete CE Mailing Danielle.Dijan 7/7/2025 7/7/2025 Complete NOH for the August 1, 2025 OSM Hearing mailed regular and evidence packet mailed certified./DD CE Staff Review Danielle.Dijan 7/7/2025 7/15/2025 Complete AOM &AOP notarized, scanned&attached/ DD Affidavit of Service/Posting Rickey.Migal 7/8/2025 7/8/2025 Complete Hearing Notice Service/Posting Rickey.Migal 7/8/2025 7/8/2025 Complete Last date to post is July 14, 2025/DD CE Mailing Danielle.Dijan 7/17/2025 7/17/2025 Complete Mailed copy of FF Order&Stipulation (not recorded)to respondent from the July 11, 2025, OSM Hearing—DD CE Staff Review Danielle.Dijan 7/25/2025 7/25/2025 Complete Disregard CE Mailing (7/25/2025 activity)- posted here in error!/DD Not Applicable Rickey.Migal 7/28/2025 7/25/2025 Not Required Pre Hearing Inspection Rickey.Migal 7/31/2025 7/31/2025 Complete MigalRickey 07/31/2025 7:31 AM-no permits have been applied for pertaining to the interior buildout of the metal building or the exterior structures. Violation remains. Generate Hearing Results Notice Danielle.Dijan 7/31/2025 7/21/2025 Complete 7/17/2025-Scanned&attached Order& (CE) stipulation (not recorded)from the July 11, 2025 OSM Hearing and sent the order to be recorded/DD CE Legal Review Miriam.Lorenz 8/1/2025 7/1/2025 Schedule AOPC attached./ML ° for SM/CEB verify abatement 2 part order or add to spreadsheet for IOF approval./ML Record Hearing Results Miriam.Lorenz 8/4/2025 8/4/2025 Complete 8-1-25 Respondent Dan Schmitt(Owner)and ° Andrew Hill(Contractor)were present.the Respondents Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED.The time for which Respondents are to comply has been extended until 120 days(November 29,2025)./ML CE Mailing Danielle.Dijan 8/7/2025 8/7/2025 Complete Mailed copy of granted EOT Order(not recorded)to respondent from the August 1, 2025, OSM Hearing/DD Generate Hearing Results Notice Danielle.Dijan 8/21/2025 8/12/2025 Complete Recorded on 8/11/25 OR 6497 PG 1997./ML (CE) 8/7/2025-Scanned&attached Granted Extension of Time Order(not recorded)from the August 1, 2025, OSM EOT Hearing and sent order to be recorded—DD Generate Hearing Results Notice Danielle.Dijan 8/22/2025 8/7/2025 Complete 8/7/2025-Scanned&attached Granted (CE) Extension of Time Order(not recorded)from the August 1,2025, OSM EOT Hearing and sent order to be recorded—DD CE Staff Review Rickey.Migal 9/27/2025 9/27/2025 Complete MigalRickey 09/27/2025 9:12 AM-permit PRFH20250837110 for the interior buildout in the metal building is"Under Review". Post Hearing Re-Inspection BradleyHolme 12/1/2025 12/1/2025 Non- 12-1-2025 Permit check completed. s Compliant Permit#PRFH20250837110-exp.3/30/2026 -status: rejected. Email sent to the property owner requesting an update. BH91 Business Management& Budget Office 6 F.7 Code Case Details Execution Date 3/5/2026 2:54:56 PM Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments CE Staff Review BradleyHolme 12/1/2025 12/1/2025 Complete 12-1-2025 AOPNC generated and submitted s to the legal team. BH91 CE Staff Review Miriam.Lorenz 12/2/2025 12/2/2025 Complete AOPNC attached./ML 0 Re-Inspection BradleyHolme 12/5/2025 12/15/2025 Non- 12-15-2025 Owner's response assembled by s Compliant the contractor-Andrew Hill: "THE PERMIT FOR THE METAL BUILDING INTERIOR BUILD OUT(PERMIT#: PRFH20250837110) WE ARE WORKING ON OUR CORRECTIONS NOW. THERE WERE A LOT OF COMMENTS AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR US TO PERMIT THE GEO- DOMES ON A SEPARATE PERMIT APPLICATION, SO TAKING A LITTLE MORE TIME THAN EXPECTED, BUT SHOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO." BH91 Re-Inspection Charles.Marin 1/5/2026 2/5/2026 Non- Permit PRFH20250837110 remains in os Compliant "Rejected"status with an expiration date of 03/30/2026.Violation remains,fines continue to accrue.Will continue to monitor. MarinosCharles 02/05/2026 9:13 AM CE Legal Review Miriam.Lorenz 1/6/2026 1/13/2026 Schedule added to spreadsheet for IOF approval./ML o for SM/CEB Verify abatement or add to spreadsheet for IOF approval./ML Schedule Case for Hearing Miriam.Lorenz 1/13/2026 1/13/2026 Complete Case scheduled for the February 6,2026, o OSM IOF Hearing./ML Generate Hearing Notice(CE) Miriam.Lorenz 1/13/2026 1/13/2026 Complete 0 Not Applicable Charles.Marin 1/13/2026 1/29/2026 Not os Required CE Mailing Miriam.Lorenz 1/13/2026 1/13/2026 Complete NOH for the February 6, 2026, OSM Hearing o sent regular mail, evidence packet sent certified./ML Pre Hearing Inspection Charles.Marin 2/5/2026 2/5/2026 Complete Permit PRFH20250837110 remains in os "Rejected"status with an expiration date of 03/30/2026.Violation remains. CM88 CE Legal Review Miriam.Lorenz 2/5/2026 2/11/2026 Schedule withdrawn from February 6,2026,on o for SM/CEB spreadsheet for approval./ML CE Staff Review Miriam.Lorenz 2/9/2026 1/29/2026 Complete Case has been withdrawn from the February o 6,2026, OSM Hearing per Manager Jeff Letourneau./ML Schedule Case for Hearing HelenBuchillo 2/11/2026 2/11/2026 Complete Case scheduled for the March 6,2026, OSM o Imposition of Fines Hearing—HB Generate Hearing Notice(CE) HelenBuchillo 2/11/2026 2/11/2026 Complete n Hearing Notice Service/Posting Charles.Marin 2/11/2026 2/11/2026 Complete Last day to post is February 13, 2026—HB os Property posted on 11Feb2026 at 1202. CM88 Affidavit of Service/Posting Charles.Marin 2/11/2026 2/11/2026 Complete os Business Management& Budget Office 7 F.8 Code Case Details Execution Date 3/5/2026 2:54:56 PM Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments CE Staff Review Miriam.Lorenz 2/11/2026 2/18/2026 Complete Scanned&attached notarized IOF AOM ° AOP./ML Please scan and notarize signed AOP. CM88 Re-Inspection Charles.Marin 3/5/2026 3/5/2026 Non- Permit PRFH20250837110 remains in os Compliant "Rejected"status with an expiration date of 03/30/2026.Violation remains,fines continue to accrue. MarinosCharles 03/05/2026 9:38 AM Pre Hearing Inspection Charles.Marin 3/5/2026 3/5/2026 Complete Permit PRFH20250837110 remains in os "Rejected"status,violation remains. CM88 Record Hearing Results Miriam.Lorenz 3/10/2026 Pending 0 Re-Inspection Charles.Marin 4/6/2026 Pending (Permit PRFH20250837110 remains in os "Rejected"status with an expiration date of 03/30/2026.Violation remains,fines continue to accrue.) Violation Description Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments Building Permit LDC NOV Issued 3/14/2025 $0 Improvement Prior to Building Permit NOV Issued 3/14/2025 $0 CO Required ATF Permits NOV Issued 3/14/2025 $0 Title Reason Result Compliance Fine/Day Condition Special Magistrate Hearing on Code Review Guilty $0 OSM ops cost./ML 5/2/2025 Special Magistrate Hearing on Continuance Continued $0 OSM EOT Ops Costs/DD 8/1/2025 by Respondant Special Magistrate Hearing on Continuance Continued $0 8/1/2025 by Respondant Special Magistrate Hearing on Imposition of Withdrawn $0 OSM IOF ops cost./ML 02/06/2026 Fines Special Magistrate Hearing on Imposition of Approved $0 OSM IOF Ops Costs-HB 03/06/2026 Fines Business Management& Budget Office 8 G.1 DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS �Q�°► D1Y1;1o1i Of ✓^"J � rg i C PCP 1�Jss�l�`rJt I::J !r!official:imlt of Florida Irebwy Department of State / Division of Corporations / Search Records / Search by Entity Name / Detail by Entity Name Florida Limited Liability Company 6158 SEA GRASS LANE, LLC Filing Information Document Number L17000136039 FEI/EIN Number 82-1972051 Date Filed 06/22/2017 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 396 Yucca Rd naples, FL 34102 Changed: 04/01/2020 Mailing Address 6158 Sea Grass Lane Naples, FL 34116 Changed: 04/20/2022 Registered Agent Name&Address SCHMITT, DANIEL A 396 YUCCA RD. NAPLES, FL 34102 Authorized Person(s)Detail Name&Address Title MGR SCHMITT, DANIEL 396 Yucca Naples, FL 34102 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2023 04/12/2023 2024 04/08/2024 2025 04/06/2025 G.2 Document Images 04/06/2025--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/08/2024--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/12/2023--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/20/2022--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/12/2021--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 06/26/2020--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/12/2019--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/11/2018--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 06/22/2017--Florida Limited Liability View image in PDF format • H.1 DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS DIVEI011 of on o/frfu! of%luridu web.tu? Department of State / Division of Corporations / Search Records / Search by Entity Name / Detail by Entity Name Florida Limited Liability Company 2355 HERITAGE TRAIL, LLC Filing Information Document Number L19000166422 FEI/EIN Number 84-2196529 Date Filed 06/25/2019 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 396 Yucca Rd Naples, FL 34102 Changed: 04/14/2025 Mailing Address 6158 Sea Grass Lane Naples, FL 63116 Changed: 04/19/2022 Registered Agent Name&Address SCHMITT, DANIEL 396 YUCCA RD. NAPLES, FL 34102 Authorized Person(s)Detail Name&Address Title MGR SCHMITT, DANIEL 396 Yucca Naples, FL 34102 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2023 04/12/2023 2024 04/08/2024 2025 04/14/2025 H.2 Document Images 04/14/2025--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/08/2024--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/12/2023--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/19/2022--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/12/2021--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 06/26/2020--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 06/25/2019--Florida Limited Liability View image in PDF format ,NSTR `,681727 OR 6468 PG 2131 RECORDED 5/14/2025 1:45 PM PAGES 3 1.1 CR\STAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC $27.00 CODE ENFORCEMENT-SPECIAL MAGISTRATE COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. Case No.CESD20250000741 6158 SEA GRASS LANs; ItC Respondent. 'ORlf d OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THIS CAUSE came before th e ial Magistrate for public hearing on May 2,2025,and the Special Magistrate,having received e idende.and heard argument respective to all appropriate matters, hereupon issues his Findings of Fact,C- cltsips of Law and Order of the Special Magistrate,as follows: FINDINGS OF FAQT atu9CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Respondent,6158 SEA GRASS LAN LLC he owner of the property located at 6158 Sea Grass LN,Naples,FL 34116, Folio 3822 20p00. 2. Respondent was duly notified of the date of hearing'by certified mail and posting and Dan Schmitt and Jennifer Schmitt,owners were przient4vi't1 GC Andrew Hill at the hearing. 3. The Petitioner presented substantial competent ev l n ii the form of testimony and pictorial evidence that proved by a preponderance o he evidence that the real property of the Respondent is in violation of the Collier County Land velopment Code 04-41,as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)and 10.02.06 )CI,(c)(i)to wit unpermitted construction work,including pergola and geodesic dome st6ctulps,and interior improvements to a permitted metal building, including part't ' n�nalls,bathroom,mezzanine with stairs,plumbing,electric and septic. ( ,t 4. The violation had not been abated as of the date of the public hetng< 'c ORDER Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,and pu scant to the authority granted in Chapter 162,Florida Statutes,and Collier County Ordinance No.07-44,as amended, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: A. Respondent is found guilty of violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41,as amended,Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i)to wit unpermitted construction work,including pergola and geodesic dome structures,and interior OR 6468 PG 2132 1.2 improvements to a permitted metal building,including partition walls,bathroom,mezzanine with stairs,plumbing,electric and septic. B. Respondent is ordered to pay operational costs in the amount of$111.70 incurred in the prosecution of this case within thirty(30)calendar days from the date of this hearing(June 1,2025), C. Responden ustwbate the violation by a. Shutt n U unpermitted electrical power sources to the unpermitted metal building.a�n eOdesic domes,and it is to remain off until such electrical work is addressed with a valid building permit or demolition permit and related inspections or a sworn stafepe't of compliance with all relevant electrical codes by a licensed electrician.This i to be provided to the Code Enforcement Supervisor or his designee within- 0 business days(May 12,2025)or a fine of$200.00 per day will be imposed until the vi(�tio, is abated.In the event the Violator obtains the sworn statement set out above),the Violator is granted sixty(60)days from the date of this hearing(July 1,2025)to`comlly with the permitting requirements. b. Obtaining all required Col^fier County Building Permit(s)or Demolition Permit, inspections,and Certificate oCo '1ction/Occupancy for the pergola and geodesic dome structures,and interior infom ents to a permitted metal building, including partition walls,bathroom, tzanine with stairs,plumbing,electric and septic within 90 days of this hearh(gJJtfy)1,2025)or a fine of$200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. I )_ D. Respondent shall notify the Code Enforcement In stigatgl within 24 hours of abatement or compliance in order for the County to conduct a finalntpe•fhon to confirm abatement. E. If Respondent fails to abate the violation and comply with s Order,the Collier County Code Enforcement Department may abate the violation using any appropriate method to bring the violation into compliance.If necessary,the County may requegftheiservices of the Collier County Sheriff's Office in order to access the property for abatement annenforce the provisions of this Order. All costs of abatement shall be assessed against the property r and may become a ;lineiZ he.property. ,.r4 4rb • ., DO I l tED this 2nd day of May 2025,at Naples,Collier Cou ty..J ofida. V4=r i >:,;1. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCI MENT t Ctrs K revel,Geik i�iCouds" ••'r bue Wily SPECIAL MAGISTRATE dohnrbycetnythaf M bove • •�, tad ...,,: mar the original Sled i. • - Patrick H.Neale,Esq. i Executed b�„.� 1-----Special Magistrate Patrick H.Neale on /��2025. Filed with the Secretary to the Special Magistrate on 51/A. ,2025 by Wts.a?' r** OR 5468 PG 2133 *** 1.3 PAYMENT OF FINES:Any fines ordered to be paid pursuant to this order may be paid at the Collier County Code Enforcement Division,2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Naples,FL 34104,phone#(239)252- 2440 or www.colliercountvfl.gov. Any release of lien or confirmation of compliance or confirmation of the satisfaction of the obligations of this order may also be obtained at this location. APPEAL:Any aggrieved party may appeal a final order of the Special Magistrate to the Circuit Court within thirty(30)da of the execution of the Order appealed. An appeal shall not be a hearing de novo but shall be limite tcappellate review of the record created within the original hearing. It is the responsibility ole "caling party to obtain a transcribed record of the hearing from the Clerk of Courts. Filing a N -.t .f ppeal will not automatically stay the Special Magistrate's Order. . \ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CER1 `rthat a true and correct copy of this ORDER OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, has been sent_by, - S. Mail on this /Z day of/-1977 2025 to Respondent, 6158 SEA GRASS LANE LLC,39 r;ti A RD,NAPLES,FL 34102. jot a _...-:-.K 1-111.1C. f c.._• . Code Enforcement Official ti ' t . ,ro •,,...,..\-,,,,,.--:7-., ,„..) �i; y7, • J.1 Adam Collier From: Craig Cooper Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 7:08 AM To: Adam Collier Subject: FW: CELU20240003149. 2355 Heritage Trail For review Craig Cooper Code Enforcement Officer II Code Enforcement Office:239-776-2979 Collier Cou r. 2800 Horseshoe Dr N Naples, FL 34104 Craiq.Cooper@collier.gov el 0 X 0 My email address has changed. Effective immediately please update your contact list to use this new address: Craiq.Cooper(a�collier.gov From: Dan Schmitt<daninnaples@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 4, 2026 2:54 PM To: Dan Schmitt<daninnaples@gmail.com> Cc:Craig Cooper<Craig.Cooper@collier.gov> Subject: Re: CELU20240003149. 2355 Heritage Trail EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Hi Craig- As discussed I thought all of your inquiries were related to the long standing code case. The permit case is news to me. I can't help without knowing the specific accusation. As you stated on the phone you were going to find out and let me know. Thanks! I will give you a call to discuss as soon as I find out what the concern is. . On Feb 4, 2026, at 1:30 PM, Dan Schmitt<daninnaples@gmail.com>wrote: Dear Mr. Cooper, J.2 I am writing to formally reiterate my request for a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), specifically regarding the interactive process that Collier County is required to implement. As you are aware, the Florida law signed by Governor DeSantis—House Bill 965—also mandated that such an interactive process be in place by January 1st of this year. So Collier County either met that deadline or they didn't. This is now binary. Despite my repeated requests over the past two and a half years—eight or nine times now—Collier County has either ignored or constructively denied the interactive process. This ongoing neglect constitutes a procedural violation of my rights and constructive denial of reasonable accommodation. This elevates the problem to a due process issue as well as claims for damages and penalties. Respectfully, the ask for a site visit is premature and inappropriate until you engage in the legally required interactive process. I ask once again that you follow the law and initiate the interactive process immediately. Failure to do so continues to erode due process and will be preserved as further procedural misconduct. I look forward to your prompt compliance with state and federal law. Sincerely, Dan Schnitt On Jan 18, 2026, at 4:10 PM, Dan Schmitt<daninnaples@gmail.com>wrote: 2 • . J.3 I am writing to formally reiterate my request for a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), specifically regarding the interactive process that Collier County is required to implement. As you are aware, the Florida law signed by Governor DeSantis—House Bill 965—also mandated that such an interactive process be in place by January 1st of this year. So Collier County either met that deadline or they didn't. This is now binary. Despite my repeated requests over the past two and a half years—eight or nine times now—Collier County has either ignored or constructively denied the interactive process. This ongoing neglect constitutes a procedural violation of my rights and constructive denial of reasonable accommodation. This elevates the problem to a due process issue as well as claims for damages and penalties. Respectfully, the ask for a site visit is premature and inappropriate until you engage in the legally required interactive process. I ask once again that you follow the law and initiate the interactive process immediately. Failure to do so continues to erode due process and will be preserved as further procedural misconduct. I look forward to your prompt compliance with state and federal law. Sincerely, Dan Schnitt On Jan 18, 2026, at 4:10 PM, Dan Schmitt<daninnaples@gmail.com>wrote: 2 Hon. Patrick Neale Collier County Code Enforcement Magistrate c/o Code Enforcement Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Supplemental Memorandum — Legal Foundations for ADA/FHA Procedural Accommodations in CESD20250000741 Dear Honorable Magistrate Neale, I submit the enclosed Supplemental Memorandum of Law in direct response to your remarks during the May 2, 2025 hearing, in which you asked for solid legal authority to support the reasonable accommodation arguments presented, and expressed concern about the credibility of sources: "You could be reading something that you got out of ChatGPT... that it made up." I want to thank you for raising that concern candidly—it became the driving force behind this memorandum. As a pro se participant, I wish to clarify that my self-representation was not voluntary. As reflected in the hearing transcript, the County's shift in enforcement posture—with just 48 hours' notice—made it impossible to retain and prepare qualified counsel. In that compressed window, I did the best I could to preserve and present disability-related rights on behalf of vulnerable residents. I also acknowledge that this proceeding is quasi-judicial in nature, not a formal court setting. In that spirit, I offer this submission not as a motion or procedural challenge, but as an educational supplement and act of collaboration—meant to assist the Court in evaluating a complex intersection of local enforcement and federal law. I do not seek strict perfection but rather a good-faith dialogue grounded in established authority. I believe the memorandum draws exclusively from verified legal sources—including controlling federal case law, ADA/FHA statutes and regulations, and guidance from the Department of Justice and HUD. I did my best to validate each citation independently to avoid the risk of Al-generated errors or misstatements. That being said, it's not easy as traditional sources are for licensed practitioners only, limiting my ability for pro se discovery. Thank you for your attention and for fostering a setting where questions of federal rights can be openly addressed. I welcome the opportunity to further support dialogue or contribute to improvements in policy and practice. Respectfully, Dan Schmitt Pro Se Respondent Enclosure: Supplemental Memorandum of Law on ADA/FHA Procedural Accommodations presence of potential safety concerns. The law requires public entities to engage in this process before taking punitive actions, ensuring that the needs of individuals with disabilities are considered. Argument The County's failure to engage in the reasonable accommodation process is evident from the sequence of events. Despite the respondent's multiple requests and clear emphasis on the process, the County moved directly to a severe enforcement measure without substantiated safety concerns. The judge's decision to grant a 10-day period for a safety inspection further underscores that there was no immediate threat, highlighting the inconsistency and potential retaliatory nature of the County's actions. The fact that the recommendation for a power shutoff came from higher authorities, rather than the on-site code enforcement officer, also points to a possible retaliatory intent, especially given the documented cooperative communication up to that point. Conclusion This sequence of events shows a failure to adhere to the legally required interactive dialogue process. The absence of an immediate safety threat, as reflected in the judge's decision, further undermines the County's justification for its actions and suggests that the enforcement approach was inconsistent and possibly retaliatory. The law mandates that reasonable accommodation requests be processed in good faith, ensuring that individuals with disabilities are not deprived of their rights due to administrative or punitive actions. Supplemental Argument #11 : Clarifying the Low Threshold for Initiating the Interactive Process and Reaffirming Good Faith Statement of Law Under the ADA and FHA, the legal threshold for triggering the interactive process is deliberately low. According to the HUD/DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations (2004): "An individual does not need to mention the ADA or use the words `reasonable accommodation.' "In most cases... the housing provider is entitled to obtain information that is necessary to evaluate if a requested accommodation may be necessary because of a disability." However, this right to request information follows—not precedes—the duty to initiate an interactive dialogue when the possibility of a disability-related need is reasonably apparent. Courts have consistently affirmed that informal or verbal requests can be sufficient to trigger this duty, particularly when made by or on behalf of individuals with recognized disabilities such as substance use disorder. (Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999); McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004); Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2003)). Statement of Facts Prior to the May 2 hearing, County officials—including Investigator Rick Migal—were repeatedly informed that the property was a substance abuse recovery residence and that therapeutic, electricity-powered dome equipment was being used by residents as part of their healing process. The County also reviewed our public website, which explicitly identifies us as a recovery community. Substance use disorder is categorically defined as a disability under the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12210(b)), and Collier County had both constructive and actual notice that individuals covered under this statute were being served on the property. The request submitted on April 29, just two days before the hearing, was triggered by a sudden and previously undisclosed threat: the County's intent to recommend shutting off electricity. That threat marked a critical change in circumstances and introduced imminent harm to disabled individuals. The request did not specify a modification because, by design, the interactive process is where that clarification takes place. Clarification and Good Faith To avoid further confusion, we now reaffirm and expand upon what was already known: • The dome structures at issue are used for electricity-powered therapeutic equipment utilized by residents in substance abuse recovery; • The individuals using this equipment are disabled under federal law; • The County's abrupt enforcement action—including a proposed utility shutoff—posed an immediate threat to the health, safety, and equal access rights of these individuals; • The April 29 request was made in good faith and triggered a legal obligation to pause enforcement and initiate the interactive process. We are not raising these facts now to seek a retroactive outcome—we are doing so to eliminate any ambiguity and ensure that future requests are not rejected based on overly rigid or technical readings of the law. Denying a process based on an incomplete form of a request is precisely what the ADA and FHA seek to prevent. We respectfully request that this Court consider this clarification as evidence of ongoing good faith and a sincere attempt to comply with and reinforce federally mandated procedural protections. Supplemental Argument #12: Voluntary Clarification of Procedural Intent and Recovery Context Statement of Facts This supplemental argument is offered voluntarily and in good faith to clarify any remaining ambiguity surrounding the nature of the April 29, 2025, reasonable accommodation request and the populations impacted by Collier County's enforcement actions. This clarification is not submitted out of legal obligation, but to ensure that no speculation or incomplete assumptions become the basis for future enforcement decisions. First, the April 29 request was submitted to initiate the interactive process required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA). It did not reauest a waiver of enforcement or seek to circumvent permitting requirements. Rather, it sought a pause in enforcement—specifically a threatened utility shutoff—to allow time for dialogue regarding potential disability-related harm. This intent was reiterated during Defendant's opening statement at the May 2, 2025 hearing, in which he again called for a pause in enforcement and offered testimonial evidence from individuals using the dome structures in recovery. Second, the dome structures on the property are used consistently by residents of a recognized substance abuse recovery home, as well as by dozens of additional individuals from the broader community who regularly participate in recovery-based meetings and therapeutic activities held in the domes. Due to the ethical norms of anonymity embedded in recovery culture, individuals are not polled or documented regarding their recovery status. However, the program's purpose, the consistent participation, and the shared understanding within the community make it unmistakably clear that the dome space is being used by persons with disabilities as defined under the ADA and FHA. Substance use disorder in recovery is a recognized disability (42 U.S.C. § 12210(b)), and the County had both actual and constructive notice of this through prior communications, public representation, and statements made to Investigator Rick Migal. Additionally, during the hearing, testimony was presented from dome users who shared that their recovery was directly supported by access to these structures. A signed statement from Jennifer Defendant, CRRA Director, confirmed that none of the residents who regularly use the domes have relapsed, which stands in stark contrast to the national failure rate of 90%. _ "Substance abuse recovery faces significant challenges. Studies indicate that approximately 94% of individuals with substance use disorders do not seek treatment, largely due to financial barriers and the high cost of care. Among those who do enter treatment, the relapse rate hovers around 40% to 60% within the first year. These statistics highlight the urgent need for innovative approaches to recovery, as traditional models are failing a significant portion of those in need." (Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse) Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health This is compelling evidence of the domes' efficacy in providing stability for vulnerable populations. Defendant asserts that ignoring or obstructing innovations like this is part and parcel of the larger systemic failure in addiction recovery, particularly in a state like Florida, which ranks second in the nation in overdose deaths. "Florida has consistently ranked second in the nation for drug overdose deaths over the past 20 years, following California. In 2020, Florida reported 7,579 overdose deaths, marking a 37% increase from the previous year. This trend underscores the critical need for innovative recovery solutions to address the opioid crisis." (Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)) Furthermore, the use of the domes is not limited to those in substance abuse recovery. One individual attending the space shared that he had been previously diagnosed with schizophrenia and attributes his full recovery to regular use of the dome environment. While anecdotal, this testimony reveals two important facts: (1) the domes are supporting broader mental health recovery, and (2) mental health is another deeply broken system in which people seek alternatives when traditional methods fall short. In this case, schizophrenia—often misdiagnosed up to 50% of the time—was confronted through an alternative therapeutic modality, suggesting the domes may also serve populations protected under the ADA for mental health reasons. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted mental health globally. According to the World Health Organization, anxiety and depression prevalence increased by 25% worldwide during the pandemic. Additionally, a study published in the journal Psychiatry Research found that 53% of mental health clinicians reported instances where a schizophrenia diagnosis was assigned despite clinical presentation not matching diagnostic criteria." (Sources: World Health Organization, Psychiatry Research) Legal Framing and Intent The ADA and FHA do not require formalized or technical perfection in accommodation requests. As noted by HUD and DOJ guidance, a request may be made verbally, informally, and need not include special terminology or clinical evidence. The duty to engage in an interactive process arises once the entity is placed on notice that a disability-related need exists. In this case, the April 29 letter, prior communications, and the content of the hearing itself all satisfy that threshold. That request was improperly denied or ignored, and enforcement proceeded without pause. This supplemental clarification reinforces that the reasonable accommodation process was lawfully invoked, that the affected population consists of protected individuals, and that the County's continued posture—suggesting exaggeration or bad faith—is both factually inaccurate and legally unsupportable. The Respondent's actions reflect a sincere effort to pursue compliance in a manner that does not harm those the law is designed to protect. Conclusion This clarification is submitted to eliminate any speculation and to ensure that the record accurately reflects the scope, intent, and disability-related significance of the dome structures. Denying process based on incomplete information, or minimizing the realities of recovery-based support systems, risks perpetuating harm to a class of individuals the law mandates we protect. The County is urged to reconsider its framing of this matter and to engage, as originally requested, in a constructive, legally compliant interactive process. SUMMARY OF REQUIRED REMEDIES To correct these violations and prevent further harm: 1. Immediate Stay of Enforcement: All punitive or corrective enforcement actions related to the May 2 case must be paused until the reasonable accommodation request is properly evaluated and an interactive process is completed. 2. Initiation of Interactive Process: The County must formally acknowledge the April 29 request and enter into good-faith dialogue regarding available accommodations, including adjusted timelines or safe, temporary compliance alternatives. 3. Policy Revision and Training: Collier County code enforcement officials and magistrates should be trained to distinguish between physical and procedural accommodations and to recognize that government entities themselves are subject to accommodation duties. We respectfully request adherence to these legal demands within 10 business days upon receipt of this brief. APPENDIX: Al TRANSCRIPTS NOT CURATED AT THIS TIME BUT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY ACCURATE FOR MATERIAL MATTERS (JL) = Jeff Letourneau (HPN) = Honorable Patrick Neale (TL) = Thomas Landimarino (AH) = Andre Hill (DS) = Daniel Defendant (RM) = Ricky Migal (RT) = Ronald Tomasko 00:00 Yes, I'd like to see it, please. And, uh, just for the record, uhm, the county has no objection to the entry of this packet into evidence, so this packet will be entered into evidence. 00:24 As respondents want, as composite. Okay, so I'm just trying to be accurate, so I'm just going to read, uh, an opening. Question 1: Timestamp 00:31 (DS) Your Honor, I respectfully request an immediate stay and or a referral to mediation on the grounds that Collier County has failed to provide reasonable accommodation as required under federal law, resulting in denial of due process. 00:45 (DS) I submitted a written request for accommodation on April 29th. Prior to this hearing, and that request has not been acknowledged or addressed, and I offer three categories of evidence in support of this request. 00:56 First, the county's recommendation to shut off electricity would result in the immediate displacement of a resident living in the house on the property that would also lose power if the shutoff is enforced. Question 1: 01:08 This creates an urgent and harmful situation, interfering with basic needs and safety. And directly implicates a county's obligation to consider reasonable accommodation before taking enforcement action. Question 2: 01:20 Second, (DS) residents with disabilities currently rely on specialized equipment located on-site that requires electricity to operate. These individuals have provided meaningful and material statements describing how this equipment supports their recovery and well-being. Question 2: 01:38 (DS) Denying access to this equipment, uh, due to a utility shut-off would cause serious harm to protected individuals and reflects a failure to account for federally mandated accommodations. Question 3: 01:51 (DS) Third, I have a complete history, historical record from a separate code case that demonstrates a consistent failure by Collier County to understand and apply the standards for reasonable accommodation. Question 3: 02:03 (DS)That case resulted in unnecessary enforcement actions, substantial legal costs, and an erosion of due process protections. So taken together, these facts demonstrate both an immediate procedural failure and a broader systemic, systemic issue. Question 3: 02:20 (DS) I respectfully request that the proceedings be paused and reviewed, not only for to ensure fairness in my case this morning, but to help to protect the rights of others in future cases involving federally protected individuals. 02:37 (HPN) Question for you. My understanding of reasonable accommodation is that it's the owner of the property that has to make the reasonable accommodation, not the government. 02:48 Urn, that's, that's not my, on this other case, Question 4: (DS) I hired attorneys because of the failure for reasonable accommodation. I spent $30,000 with the attorneys, and their result is they had to educate Collier County on the process, and Collier County, per their own admission, does not have a reasonable accommodation Question 4: 03:09(DS) process for, for people in this particular disability situation. (TL) Your Honor, if I may, Tom ladoberno, Director for Code Enforcement. This case has to do with permitting of unpermitted structures. Question 6: 03:21(TL) It has nothing to do with accommodations, or any other sort that the respondent is discussing. And that's sort of what I'm looking at is, this is permitting. Question 6: 03:31(TL) I mean, you would have had to get a permit. There's no reasonable accommodation for getting permits. Question 6: (DS) No, this is, 48 hours ago, I got a notice that the plan was to request that they shut off electricity. Question 6: 03:45 (DS) Shutting off electricity immediately puts this into that category, where reasonable accommodation is necessary because of the harm it will put on people that have a federally recognized disability. 03:56 (HPN) Does the county have any comments? (JL) I'd like to ask Mr. Schmidt a couple questions, if I could. Sure. Urn, Mr. Schmidt, uhm, you say you have people coming over for health activities? 04:10 Can you, can you, uh, elaborate? Well, there's, we have, we have res, I'm sorry. (DS) We have residents on the property that are in recovery from substance abuse. 04:20 (DS) And we also have, uh, people from the community that have come to join them. Uh, our philosophy is the opposite of addiction is connection. 04:29(DS) And we're proving that, uh, when we have people that do these, uh, wellness activities together. Oh, I, (JL)I admire that kind of work, but, uh, do you have any, any form of county approvals for these types of activities? 04:40 Urn, no, (DS) not at this, not at this point in time. We weren't aware of a need for approval. (JL) And, uh, one more question. 04:48 (JL) Well, you have because we served a notice of violation on those activities, correct? Well, recently, I, that's a, that's a violation is not necessarily a mission. 04:58 Okay. I'm just saying that, uh, the county has informed you that, uh, yes, yes, yes. That's where another case we're going to hear, I think, uh, okay. In the next month. 05:05 Uh, also you said you had a resident living, not in the house. Where's this resident living? that's in a house. 05:14 It's in a house. Is it in the main house or is it in another structure? It's in another structure. The secondary house, the, the, what is there a guest house? 05:24 That's a guest. Is there a permanent guest house? Okay. No, no, no other questions. I'm just, (HPN) I'm still sort of befuddled on the reasonable accommodation side as to I, I, as I said, in my practice, I've run across a number of ADA cases and typically the reasonable accommodation is, is a burden put upon 05:49(HPN) the property owner, not upon the government enforcing code enforcement regulations. No, this is very common in this case. Uh, the 50% in cases and, and so the bigger picture I'm trying to do is change, get laws in law economy because(DS) 50% of the cases in the United States that deal with sober living homes 06:05 (DS) have to do with ADA compliance. And that's not because people are, are sue happy. It's because there's a dysfunction in the system. 06:12 (DS)So I've actually had in, in, you know, enjoying the, uh, DOJ on this to say, I would like to create a task force. 06:18(DS) I don't want the DOJ to sue Collier County. I want to create a tax force of the DOJ, federal, ADA, and local to, uh, address the issue because the laws need to be changed to give this, to give the County power to shut down bad sober living homes while also giving sober lip, good sober living homes power 06:37(DS) to say, here's our result, our rights. So this is very common and the lawyers, uh, in Collier County that knows this, they, they have it. Question 7:06:46(DS) It's in here, um, in that other code case as an example. Example to where they were working to establish reasonable accommodation process. Question 7: 06:54 Uh, (DS) Collier County just didn't understand that you're supposed to do that process right away before code enforcement, uh, not after. 07:06 (TL) Your Honor, if I may, Tom, I had to bring up director again. But the reality of this is those are moot points because he has unpurposed- Unpermitted structures. 07:15(TL) He has electricity and built out to unpermitted structures. There's nothing in, in the Florida Building Code that allows somebody to have unpermitted occupiable space structures, whether it's a sober living or a non-sober living. 07:28 Uh, you know, to example, you know, (TL) the David Lawrence Center or the Willows or other facilities in town, they have permitted structures where they are allowing this activity to take place. 07:38 (TL) You have unpermitted, uninspected, presumably not necessarily, uh, the safest structures because they haven't been inspected by somebody to, to turn, to show that they are through the Florida Building Code. Question 11: 07:52(TL) So there's the issue. I understand that, you know, there may be somebody who can confirm that they're safety, but if it's not been inspected by the county, by our building inspector, inspectors, then it's not inspected and that's where you need a permit to do the work. 08:06 (TL)And that's, the hang up is this. Question 11: (DS) I, I completely understand. I agree. Question 11: (TL) So that's, then, then that's the point of the case today, sir. Question 11: 08:13 (TL) Not ADA, not the reasonable accommodation that you're discussing. Question11: (DS) When you, when you elevate it to shutting off electricity, as in my letter to you the other day, that is exactly the case. Question 11: 08:25 (DS) It's where we have a problem, because now if you shut down electricity, you displace a person. All the people that rely on this for their recovery. 08:33(TL) Years ago, had you gotten a permit in the first place, we wouldn't be here, sir. Okay. So that's another thing. 08:40 (DS) So I'm an innovator. I follow the rules, but as an innovator, there's not a way to innovate with permits. You this one, sir. Question 11: 08:45 (TL) You didn't get permits to build the structure. I have Question 11: ,(DS) I, Tom, I have no problem. Re-permitting and looking at everything to get it squared away. Question 11: 08:53 (DS) I'm specifically stating, when you turned up, turn off the electricity, I have a problem, because now I have residents that have nowhere to go for their healing and the things they do to stay sober. 09:03 (JL) Where are these residents living? They're living on the property. I mean, what structure are they living in? A house. So the, the electricity that we, is the undead. 09:13 (TL) Permitted electric is what we are asking. That's the normal recommendation that the _ investigator would have. It's the unpermitted, uninspected electric. 09:22 We're not telling you to turn the power off to the main house. (DS) Okay, well, the, you turn off the power to the barn, the, the guest house is turned off, and the power to these domes, which are essentially outdoor bathtubs. 09:33 Well, let's continue with the case, sir, and we'll go. Well, just one, I'm sorry, one more question. You, you've got a, a permitted guest house that has permitted electric. 09:41 How does shutting off this unpermitted electric affect the guest house? Uh, I was, that's just what I was told. Maybe this, this is, uh, my, a general contractor that might be able to answer that question. 09:54 I, I can't answer that very well. I, I need you on the microphone. I need you to swarm. I need your name. 09:58 Uh, my name's Andrew Hill. Swear or affirm. From the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 10:04 I swear the truth. Uh, I'm a licensed general contractor, Class A general contractor, licensed. Urn, Mr. Schmidt had hired a consulting, or had been working with a consulting to comply. 10:17 Urn, they just in the last week have backed out to helping him. So, I went over there to take a look. 10:25 (AH) when I talked to Rick about compliance to, and that's what I thought we were coming here for today, to talk about complying, getting an architect, engineer, getting some plans together. 10:37 (AH) I need a few weeks to do that. Then I need a few weeks for review, and then I want to call in the inspections. 10:43 (AH) In the meantime, this week, like I said, I have a Class A general contractor's license, went and visited the site. 10:49(AH)There's access to the signs. It's been built properly. The barn itself does have a permit. I actually, I brought an electrical contractor, Manny, with Galaxy Electric, who's building a couple restaurants for me right now. 11:03 (AH) We went over and looked at the property. We have disconnects. Everything we could see was to code and complied. So everything we're looking at, I didn't, I had to go through the process to make sure myself before I came here to tell you all that it looks safe and from what we can see that it was complying 11:19(AH) to all codes and everything. And I was also getting people together. I've already met with a couple of architects, electrical engineer, to get the plans together, like I said, to, to submit for a building permit and call in the inspections. 11:34(AH) And most everything out there is exposed. Uhm, it's a barn, uhm, the conduits, everything's, everything is visible for, fortunately, it's not like a residential project or commercial. 11:46 (AH) Everything's exposed. So our job's been pretty easy so far to acknowledge that this is safe, uhm, and from what we can see so far, everything's in compliance and that's what I want to get some engineers together and submit to the county for a building permit. 12:02 (AH) If it weren't for shutting off the electricity, we're all over it. Let's get permits, let's get this figured out, we're trying to do the right thing. Question 12: 12:14 (DS) We've got residents that rely on this for their sobriety. Uh, of course we're going to get all over it. So, this, this idea that, that if this code, as a code case for, for, for permits, we're more compliant than you're going to meet to try to get caught up to that because of the people we're trying 12:31 to protect. Question 12: (DS) But when you shut off the electricity and affect people with current disabilities that rely on it for their sobriety, we're going to have relapses, we're going to have potentially seriously dangerous issues. 12:43 What part of the, what part of the place is unpermitted? As far as their electric? The barn was, uh, built in, uh, 2007, permitted in 2007 as a shell. 13:00 Nothing, electric, plumbing, otherwise, no, no air conditioning, nothing was, uh, no bathroom, nothing was there, it was a shell, maybe to put some cars in, or a tractor or two. 13:14 So, virtually everything is unpermitted. Well, but the main house and the secondary, Oh, this is not about the main house or the guest house. 13:23 They've been checked out and they are properly permitted. And the geodesic domes, where, what's the status of They've been purchased, they've been built, uh, by, Yeah, built, basically. 13:33 They were built by you, and not permitted either. Okay. On the outside structures. They all need to be permitted. So, if you shut off the unpermitted electric, it would just be for the barn and the outdoor structures. 13:50 Right, but if we shut it off, from what I understand, it will shock the house. But more importantly, this is a therapeutic, Don't you have a separately wired box for that? 13:59 Uh, the, the barn is fed by the guest house. That was the main disconnect. It's got a hundred amp disconnect at the guest house, maybe two hundred amp. 14:09 But you could disconnect it at the guest house? No. No, the guest, they're, they're connected. If you turn the power off to the barn, you have to turn the power off to the guest house. 14:19 Well, Your Honor, uhm, I believe that a licensed electrician could remove that circuit that feeds the barn. It's got to be on a separate circuit, or more than one, for the kind of load that you're going to be using. 14:32 And, uh, that could be, uh, removed at the, whatever, there has to be a box, uh, main circuit, uh, breaker box at the guest house. 14:41 And they can go in, remove it, and then it's dead. Because obviously at one point the guest house had electricity before this unpermitted electricity was put in. 14:51 I'm just, I'm just, no, the guest house didn't have a, I'm sorry. Mama Bear has spoken. Ma'am, you need to be on the speaker. And sworn in. nothing but the way that I understand it is that the guest house was built, I don't know if you know that the guest house was built around the same time that they 15:22 put the barn up, but the, it is, it's, they're connected. And it will take those people out of that house. 15:28 How, how are they connected? If, if, if it's a legitimate guest house, it would have came with legitimate, Because Florida Power lighting bill is the barn back area in that guest house, and the front house is the front house. 15:38 I have two different bills. Yeah, but I'm just saying that at one point, when the guest house was built, it had permitted electric. 15:44 Can we get to that? Can we agree on that? Andy will know that. Okay, I, I've never seen a guest house, and I don't think they can build a guest house without permitted electric. 15:53 So at some point it had its own fuse box and whatever, had its own circuit. So they, they connected this unpermitted electric somehow to the guest house. 16:02 So, they can unhook it from the guest house. It has to be on its own circuits. I just don't, I just don't get that. 16:12 I don't get this MO here. I mean, I would like to enter in some for the record. So to me, reasonable accommodation, and this is, this is very serious matter. 16:19 Uh, must be a, I don't, I don't, I don't believe that really is totally relevant I don't understand. And that's, that's the process. 16:28 If,(DS) if our residents are displaced, they are people that are nationally recognized. (TL) There's nothing that says your residents would be displaced. 16:35 (DS)Not displaced. They're going to be, they're going to be excluded from doing the very things that keep them sober. That's, that's an issue. 16:43(DS)That's a federal issue. That's what I'm saying. It's very difficult. That's why we've had this issue with Colliery County and another. 16:48 (HPN) But here's, I'm going to play devils advocate.. If they are displaced because of your failure to obtain a permit for the facilities that they're using, that's not on the county. 17:01 (HPN)That's on you. You're the one that did not make the reasonable accommodation. (DS) The reasonable accommodation is the process. I just want the process. 17:10 I, I would really, I would very much like, and I think Mr. Tomasco was involved in this. Mr. Tomasco, please. 17:18 I want to hear what, what your, because(HPN) I thought I understood reasonable accommodations. I've fought this battle in court before, uh, so I, on behalf of clients. 17:28(HPN) So I want to understand how you're getting the reasonable accommodation for this. As far as I know, uh, Magistrate Neal, the reasonable accommodation issue that the county was looking at, there's no open code case as to that, had to do with the number of residents in the main house. 17:45 And that's all. Summary: (RT)And there's not an active code case on that as we sit here today. Because he's, he's less than six residents. Summary: 17:51 (RT) Correct. Correct. That was, that was that issue. That, as far as the county is concerned, right now that's a moot issue because there's no notice of violation that's being pursued. Dee Pulse To: Cc: RE: Code Enforcement Case No.: CELU20240003149 Mr Dan Schmitt, I apologize for delay in response and have reviewed you communications. # 1. I did receive the email you inquire about with Memorandum. #2. My case CELU20240003149 is still open. #3. In response of your formal request that the county immediately engage in an interactive process for reasonable accommodation, I have sent your email with Memorandum to Manager Letourneau for response. Let me know if you have other questions! Thank you! Dee Dee Pulse Code Enforcement Officer II Code Enforcement Office:239-877-8131 COI l il'1 COtI l it © doom Dee.Pulse@colliercountyfl.gov 18:01 (RT) So this only has to do with Unpermitted uninspected structures on the property. That's all. We're, we're making this a lot more complex. ?69% Oct 11, 2024 Letter Good morning Dee, Please review this letter dated Oct 11, 2024 from James Green who was my attorney at the time and who specializes in ADA and constitutional law. Please confirm whether or not this letter exists in the current code case. I don't believe it does. In any case, this is relevant because it also contains a request to engage the process of Reasonable Accommodation and was sent to the Mr Tomasko in response to his October 1, 2024 letter referenced in my previous email. I have read this multiple times and nowhere does it indicate agreement to limit residences to six PRIOR to the required Interactive processes necessary to establish Reasonable Accommodation. Thank you for your assistance. Please call if you have any questions. Dan Schmitt 314-580-1316 18:10 (HPN) I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around how this reaches reasonable accommodation. I don't believe it does in any way shape or form as to the permitting requirement. 18:19 (HPN)I mean, that has nothing to do with a reasonable accommodation. As you indicated, if there's a problem with someone having to move to the main house or something else, that has to do with you. 18:27(HPN) It with the owner not getting a permit, has nothing to do with the county not giving a reasonable accommodation, quote-unquote. 18:33 (HPN) Reasonable accommodation does not, in my mind, unless you can provide me legal argument and some kind of support for it. 18:38 Okay, can I give you the legal argument? Not right now. (HPN) Let me finish. Then you can. Unless you can provide me some kind of supporting legal argument that says requiring you to have permitted facilities, ...is a reasonable accommodation, not requiring you to have permitted facilities. Question 11: 19:00(HPN) I mean, somehow, the argument you're making, I get, is that you can go along and be unpermitted as long as you want, because if we don't do that, it's a reasonable accommodation. Question 11: 19:08 (DS) Your Honor, that's not at all what I'm saying. (HPN) Then, tell me what you're saying, because,(DS) I'm saying there's a reasonable accommodation process, which is, halts everything until you have that conversation, because we can't just simply enforce code. Question 11: 19:20 (DS) What are you stating the county has to do as a reasonable accommodation? Have a meeting. Discuss it. There is a reasonable, let me, let me point it out, so if you, if you look, Go ahead. Question 11: 19:30 (DS) There's an email on the, on this, too, that, ah, both Tom and, and Jeff have received, and they outlined a reasonable accommodation process, so it's a simple assessment, what, who's being impacted by this. Question 11: 19:43(DS) I have plenty of people that have a federal disability, a recognized federal disability, that will no longer have the therapeutic services they like. Question 11: 19:52 (DS) So, we need to assess that, and you guys need to understand that. Ah, communication, engage in open dialogue with the involved parties to explore and discuss possible solutions. 20:02(DS)This is, I'm looking at looking for solutions with you guys. (TL) But solution here is, you, you, you did not obey the law when you built it. 20:09 Hold on, hold on. He purchased the building this way. He had no, he doesn't. Sir, you need to be on the microphone. 20:18 That really doesn't matter. You're, you're speaking to a homeowner that purchased a property that had a ban, a barn on the property, had power. 20:25 He, he purchased everything. Everything pretty much the way it is. You're stating right now that the barn had the electric and plumbing in it when you purchased it. Yes, the barn did. 20:35 It was a, but, but, but that's not the, but the, but the domes didn't, but I want to explain this. 20:41 So, so, uh, you know, Question 12: (DS)I think we have a, a slight misunderstanding of reasonable accommodation. And according to my research, urn, under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, government entities, including, uh, local code enforcement are legally obligated to consider and respond Question 12: 20:58(DS) to your request for reasonable accommodation prior to taking action. (HPN) Sir, I don't want to interrupt, but I appreciate your argument. 21:08 (HPN)However, you're not giving me any citation. You're not giving me any case law. You're reciting something without telling me where it's from. 21:15(HPN) Without giving me a citation. And so, you could be reading something that you got out of CHAT GPT this morning that it made up. 21:26(HPN) I don't know that. Unless you can provide solid legal argument that this is subject to a reasonable accommodation standard, I don't I, I just don't get it. 21:41 (HPN)You know, I'm, I'm, I understand what you're saying, but I, even in, you know, I, I looked at your materials, I don't see a citation to anything. 21:53 (HPN) And, you know, maybe I'm being very legalistic, but that's my job. And I just don't see where your argument is coming from. 22:04(HPN) I know you, you believe it in your heart of hearts, I'm, I'm sure of that. But in this instance, where we're dealing with a simple issue of permitting, that you didn't get, and I, you may have bought it in that condition, but that's, that's frankly your, your problem. - 22:22 I mean, you bought it that way. If it wasn't permitted, you can go to go back and look in the county records when you buy a property and see if there were permits built. 22:31 Correct. Correct. We did look. The barn was built in 2007. It was permitted. The barn was? The barn, correct. It was permitted. 22:42 I mean, he wouldn't have purchased the property without that. But, but none of the electric, none of the plumbing was permitted? 22:46 We don't. I mean, as a contractor, I've, the shell is there, the building was there, we didn't go in, we didn't pull, there were no plans available, I don't think, I mean, in 2007. And also, we're asking for, I mean, we're ready to comply. 23:01 (AH)That's why we thought we were coming here. We did not know that we were turning the power off. That's brand new to us. 23:06 (AH) We're here to comply. We haven't made that final decision yet. We're here to talk about compliance. That's, that's why I'm here. 23:12 That's why I'm here helping Mr. Schmidt. We'd like to get the engineers. How long have long will it take you to comply? 23:17 I, I need four to six weeks probably for an architect or an engineer to draw. I mean, on the electric, just separate the electric out. 23:24 Well, the electric, I mean,(AH) I went out there with an electrician right now, and I feel very comfortable that it's in compliance. 23:29 (AH) Everything's strapped, everything has disconnects, everything's labeled, it looks, looks good, and the electrician said, this looks good. This looks safe. 23:39(AH) And once again, uh, I wouldn't be standing here saying this if I didn't bring a licensed electrician to the job site. 23:44(AH) And also, everything is exposed wires, or, everything's in conduit, but everything's exposed. So, we're not hidden behind the drywall. And back to why I'm here, I'm here to represent Mr. Schmidt and get compliance. 23:57(AH) Get architects, get engineers together, need a few weeks to get some drawings, need a few weeks for review, and, and, uh, we'd like to call in our inspections. 24:06(AH) And, and, fortunately, these things are exposed and everything should be pretty straightforward for us. And, and, understand, there's two pieces to this. 24:13 (HPN) One is the electrical piece, which is dangerous. Now, if you can get a licensed electrician to give a sworn statement that this meets all applicable building codes, then we might have something to talk about. 24:28 (DS)And we, I tried to do that, I just was short of time, I just heard this two days ago, which doesn't give us a reasonable amount of time to get this done. 24:37 (DS)Trust me, I've been scrambling for two days since I heard this. (RM)Your Honor, would you like to hear the county's recommendation? 24:45 Not yet. Urn, Mr. Jomasco, lead. There he is. So, Mr. Jomasco, you've given your presentation, I've looked through it, that this meets, somehow needs a reasonable accommodation. 25:08 Mr. Jomasco, again, do you have any authorities that says that those are done? Question 11: (RT) As there are no authorities whatsoever that say support the proposition that you can utilize the ADA as a sword in defense of not having a permitted and inspected building. Question 11: 25:25(RT) As, as the co-director himself told you, if that were the case, they could have built the David Lawrence Center without permits, without inspections, simply because of the clientele they service, and we know that would be an absurd result. Question 11: 25:37(DS) Your Honor, that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to, I'm trying to say there's a process to go through that is required, and I just want to go through the process. 25:45(DS) I'm asking to meet with mediation and have, uh, have a, have a voice to have mediation for over a year with these folks. 25:52 (DS)For the same thing, because this is a problem throughout the country, which is creating, (TL) Sir, in that year, you could have easily gotten this all permitted. 25:59 No, no, no. This is a two-month, this is, this is two different issues. (HPN) Sir, can you speak into other cases, the other cases not before me. 26:07(HPN) I know. I don't care. Question 11: (DS) I've been trying to get mediation for a year. That's, I understand that. It's now being repeated. Question 11: 26:12 (HPN)That's not, that's not before me. (DS)The concern is it's being repeated. (DS)The same failure in that case is now being repeated again. Question 11: 26:20 (DS)And that failure is the reasonable accommodation process. It's a process that is the failure. All I want to do is go through the process. 26:27(HPN) I, I guess I'm just still, I I'm having a difficulty wrapping my head around where the, where you need a reasonable accommodation to allow you to not have permitted electorate. ` 26:40(DS) I'm not looking for that. I'm looking for allow me to say what is the best way we can serve the people that have a federally recognized disability in light of this issue. Question 11: 26:49 (HPN)That's, that's, to me, that's completely irrelevant to whether you need to pull a permit. Question11: (DS)I agree. ` Question 11: 26:51 (HPN)So then why are you making the argument? Question 11: 26:56 (DS) Because it's relevant to our residents and their rights. Question 11: (HPN)I don't see your failure to obtain a permit as any relevance to your residents' rights. 27:06 (HPN) Your residents may want to assert rights. Uh, but those rights would typically be asserted against the owner of the building. 27:14 (HPN) That you didn't have proper accommodations. You didn't have proper housing. You know, an ability for them to access the facility, etc, etc. 27:20 (HPN)That would be an ADA complaint. That would be a reasonable accommodation complaint. If, if, if, and I understand I don't have the case law in front of me. 27:30 (DS) But if there exists case law, should we not have a day or two to make, make sure we can address this issue and discover that versus enforcing something tomorrow? 27:40 (DS) When, by the way, I've been doing this for five years. Not one person has ever gotten hurt. So, can't we wait for a couple days until we can get the case law and have a better conversation? 27:52 Well, the only place to have a conversation is here. Other than negotiating. Permitting is gonna go. The permitting is in process. 27:58 (DS)We're gonna knock it out. I have no problem with that issue. The issue is the discussion to say, how do we take care of these people? 28:04(DS) And there's creative ideas. I've got two commercial sites ready to build, uh, a commercial, uh, system that allows this. That's very difficult. 28:13 (DS)Because not only is that a slow process, but they don't even know what a dome is. Like, is it a building or is it equipment? 28:19(DS) That's the kind of discussions that are going on right now in order to build these on a commercial site. So, now I'm looking for, how do I have, uh, an accommodation for these people in the short term? 28:29 One creative idea, well, what if I, what if I build a, uh, uh, a mobile system that is permitted? I'd like to serve these people because we have tremendous results from the, this process that we discovered. 28:41 (TL) Sir, I, I, I respect all your decisions and how you want to go about that, but this is simply, you don't have permits or you do have permits. 28:49 (TL)That's all. I, (DS)I agree for the permit case. Then, then. (TOL)This is the permit case. Then, then, that's what we are. 28:54 (DS)No, but the other part of electricity elevates it. (TL)This is not the venue for the other conversation, sir. It's just a permitting,(DS) but the process of accommodation is the, is the venue. 29:05(HPN)The County would object to any of the, any continuance of this at this point due to the fact that our County attorney has already stated, it isn't believed that it's a, uh, a conflict with what this gentleman's saying. 29:16(HPN) And I, I, with all due respect, Mr. Schmidt, he's a licensed attorney. As far as I know of, you're not. 29:23 (DS)I'm not sure what that means.(HPN) Well, what that means is he's trained to be able to analyze legal issues and present on them. 29:30 (HPN)You're not. Normally, if you're going to be represented by someone in this kind of environment, you should have an attorney representing you, not a contract. 29:38 Right. Well, you allow, (DS)That 48 hours ago. So, if I don't have, 48 hours is not good enough, or is that sufficient time to get an attorney? 29:49 (DS) We wouldn't have had this conversation if this was just limited to permits. Respondents were notified, certified, and mailed April 14, 2025, and was posted at the property and courthouse April 14, 2025. (DS) Your Honor, I'm talking about an email. 30:05(DS) Email where they were going to say, recommend shutting down electricity. That was notified 48 hours ago, and Rick can tell you right here that he wasn't aware of that because he told us the permitting process, we were hard charging, let's fix this, 48 hours ago we told, nope, they're going to recommend 30:20 (DS) that you turn off electricity. That completely changed everything. So I don't, I can't get a, a, a federal ADA attorney and a constitutional attorney and a 48 hour period and get them up to speed, it's impossible. 30:33 (TL)But you said you'd had these cases thoroughly researched, you'd spent $30,000 on attorneys, am I right? Summary: (DS) That's a different case, with the, with the number of, of residents, and by the way, they're, they still haven't gone through reasonable accommodation on that case yet, and it is still open. Summary: 30:47 (HPN)No it's not, according to the county. Summary: (DS) I do believe it is. We have an open case, but we have not presented it for hearing. 30:55 And, and that's a different, different property as We're, we're, I'm here, we're here to comply. 31:09 (AH)I understand. And, and I think on April whatever, the entire time, we thought we were coming to tell you how we were going to comply. That's why I'm here. Getting the architects, engineers, give us a few weeks to get plans, however long the county needs, four to six weeks for the county to review the 31:26 plans, and then we'll call in inspections. And then everybody, then we're, then we're complying. Like I said, we're, we're caught off in the last couple days with the threat of losing. 31:35(RM) Your you're prepared to hear our recommendation, we could, we would be ready to present it for you. And, uh, thank that might help the process along, sir. 31:43 (HPN)So let the county proceed.(RM) Recommendation is that the County Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay. Oh, I'm sorry. 31:55(RM) I'm sorry. I didn't fix that one. The Special Magistrate orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$111.70 in current expenses. 32:05 (RM)of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by number one, shut off all unpermitted electrical power sources to the unpermitted metal building and geodesic domes, and is to remain off until such electric work is addressed with a valid building or demolition permit and related inspections within 32:26 (RM)seven days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day. Will be imposed until the violation is abating abated. 32:34(RM) Number two, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit inspections and certificate of completion slash occupancy for the pergola and geodesic dome structures and interior improvements to a permitted metal metal building, including partition walls, bathroom, mezzanine 32:53 (RM)with stairs. plumbing, electric, and septic within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 33:04 (RM)Number three, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement if the respondent fails to abate the violation the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance 33:23 (RM)and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. 33:38(HPN) I'm prepared to close the public hearing on this. The public hearing is now closed. r r ' 1 EMERGENCY— TIME SENSITIVE— EXECUTION SCHEDULED WITHIN HOURS— IMMEDIATE JUDICIAL REVIEW REQUIRED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RE: CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. CESD20260001085 ## EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO QUASH INSPECTION WARRANT AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE STAY (SUPPLEMENTAL AND ALTERNATIVE RELIEF) COMES NOW, Dan Schmitt, individually and on behalf of 2355 Heritage Trail, LLC, and files this Emergency Supplement to Motion to Quash Inspection Warrant and Request for Immediate Stay (Supplemental and Alternative Relief), and states: ### Emergency Nature of Filing This is an emergency filing. A new inspection warrant is scheduled for execution at 8:00 AM, and newly discovered evidence—received after the original Motion to Quash was submitted—directly contradicts the sworn factual basis used to obtain the warrant. Immediate judicial intervention is required to prevent irreparable harm. ### Supplemental Nature of Relief This filing is intended to supplement, not duplicate, the previously filed Motion to Quash. It presents newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of the original filing and is offered as supplemental and alternative grounds for relief. ### Newly Discovered Evidence On March 27, 2026 at 4:01 PM, after the original Motion to Quash was submitted earlier that same day, the undersigned received an email from Michael Bosi, attached as Exhibit A. In that email, Mr. Bosi states: > "I will point out that the reasonable accommodation process does replace the traditional conditional use requirement for group care facilities with more than 6 residents required by the LDC. So, if approved by the Board through the reasonable accommodation process, no CU would be required." ### Material Misrepresentation to the Court The County obtained the inspection warrant based on the following sworn representation: > "It was later determined by Zoning Manager Ray Bellows that group care facilities housing more than 6 individuals would require a Site Development Plan ('SDP') and an approved conditional use through the county..." These statements cannot be reconciled. - The warrant based on the assertion that a conditional use is required; - The County's Zoning Director confirms that conditional use is not required where the reasonable accommodation process applies. Additionally, the affidavit appears to inaccurately characterize the property as containing multiple homes on a single parcel in violation of zoning. In fact, the structures are located on separate parcels. While this issue is not necessary to resolve the present motion, it further underscores concerns regarding the accuracy of the factual representations relied upon to obtain the warrant. This constitutes a material misrepresentation to the Court, going directly to the existence of probable cause. ### Legal Significance Because the warrant relies on a regulatory requirement that the County now confirms does not apply, the warrant lacks a valid legal foundation. The factual predicate presented to the Court was materially inaccurate or incomplete at the time it was issued. This newly discovered evidence independently supports quashing the warrant, even apart from the grounds raised in the original Motion to Quash. ### Condensed Emergency Argument Your Honor, this warrant was issued based on a requirement for conditional use approval that the County's own Zoning Director now confirms does not apply when the reasonable accommodation process is in play. That contradiction eliminates probable cause and constitutes a material misrepresentation to the Court. With execution scheduled imminently, immediate intervention is necessary to prevent enforcement based on a defective premise. ### Relief Requested (Supplemental and Alternative) WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully requests that this Court, on a supplemental and alternative basis: 1. QUASH the inspection warrant in its entirety; 2. IMMEDIATELY STAY execution of the warrant pending further review; 3. SUPPRESS any evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant, should execution occur prior to ruling; and 4. Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper. ## PROPOSED ORDER > ORDER ON EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO QUASH INSPECTION WARRANT > THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Respondent's Emergency Supplement to Motion to Quash Inspection Warrant. The Court, having reviewed the filing and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds that newly discovered evidence submitted after the issuance of the warrant raises substantial questions regarding the factual and legal basis upon which the warrant was issued, including a direct contradiction between the requirements asserted in the warrant affidavit and the County's current authoritative interpretation of its Land Development Code. > Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that immediate relief is necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent potential enforcement based on a materially disputed premise. > Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: > 1. The Inspection Warrant in Case No. CESD20260001085 is hereby QUASHED, or alternatively, > 2. The execution of the Inspection Warrant is IMMEDIATELY STAYED pending further review by this Court; > 3. No inspection or enforcement action pursuant to the warrant shall proceed until further order of this Court. > DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers. > Rob Crown > Circuit Court Judge ### Exhibit - Exhibit A— March 27, 2026 Email from Michael Bosi - Exhibit B - Copy of Judge Crown order. ### Respectfully Submitted Dan Schmitt Individually and on behalf of 2355 Heritage Trail, LLC Email: Daninnaples@gmail.com Phone: 314-580-1316 Dated: Sunday, March 29, 2026 ### Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via electronic mail, due to the emergency nature of this filing and the fact that it is being submitted on a Sunday, to: - Michael Bosi - Craig Cooper - Collier County Attorney's Office (Tomasko) - Code Enforcement Division (Landamarino, Collier) on this 29th day of March, 2026. Physical service will follow when practicable. /s/ Dan Schmitt Exhibit A 10:25AM Sun Mar 29 75% m ' [3 0 RE: 2026 Confidential Accommodation Request Good Afternoon Dan, The reasonable accommodation process does not exempt an applicant from any requirements of the Land Development Code(LDC). I will point out that the reasonable accommodation process does replace the traditional conditional use requirement for group care facilities with more than 6 residents required by the LDC. So,if approved by the Board through the reasonable accommodation process,no CU would be required.Within any application you submit a conceptual site plan will be required to depict all activities provided for within your facilities. Sincerely, mike Michael Bosi Division Director-Planning&Zoning Zoning , Office:239-252-1061 SL?' Mobile:239-877_0705 Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe drive Naples,Florida 34104 O N N 0 Mlcheel_Bosi@collier.gov My email address has changed.Effective immediately,please update your contact list to use this new address:Michael.Bosi@collier.gov a X CM From: Heidi Ashton <Heidi.Ashton@collier.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 10:54 AM To: Michael Bosi <Michael.Bosi@collier.gov> Cc: Courtney DaSilva <Courtnev.DaSilvaacollier.aov>: Wanda Exhibit B • • IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, COLLIER COUNTY v. INSPECTION WARRANT 2355 Heritage Trail LLC,owner[s]of 2355 Heritage Trail,Naples FL,34112 Collier County Florida. Code Case Number;CESD20260001085 BEFORE ME, � �t,�A/ , Judge of the Circuit Court in and for Collier County,Florida,personally appeared Code Enforcement Division("CED")Code Officer II,Craig Cooper,who being duly sworn,deposes and says that he has cause to believe and does believe that a condition of non-conformity exists on the property more particularly described as: [2355 Heritage Trail,Naples,FL,34112("the Property")]Interior and exterior of property and structures On April 2nd of 2024, CED received a cnrnplaint forwarded from Collier County Commissioner's Office, alleging that the r y located at 2355 Heritage Trail, Naples, FL,34112 had prohibited land use violation iocluiling but not limited to"Home is alleged to be a halfway house or sober house facility. Please check to see if that is the use of the property,and if it is,that it has all required permits and/or licenses for this type of activity" (Exhibits A.1 —A.3). It was later determined by Zoning Manager Ray Bellows that group care facilities housing more than 6 individuals would require a Site Development Plan ("SDP")and an approved conditional use through the county(Exhibits B.1 —B.3). Further research on this property while reviewing case CELU20240003149 revealed potentially unpermitted construction resulting in an additional case on the property. Case number CESD20260001085. During our research of the property, it is noted on the website, https://artoflivinghome.org/naples, that the property has two homes for women and one home for men,and a community barn(Exhibits C.1—C.6).Research on the property shows one main dwelling structure, a guest house, one stable and storage area, and two garages (Exhibits D.1—D.17). Research revealed that the Property at 2355 Heritage Trail,Naples,FL,34112 is owned by 2355 Heritage Trail LLC, according to the records of the Collier County Property Appraiser.The Folio for the property is 00402000006(Exhibits El). In addition,there is a pattern of similar cases reported to the CED within the past five years on a separate property with common ownership/management. Case CESD20250000741 has previously been adjudicated by the special magistrate and found in violation for unpermitted **IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA** CASE NO.: CESD20260001085 DAN SCHMITT, Petitioner, v. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, Respondent. EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH INSPECTION WARRANT EMERGENCY SUMMARY OF BASIS FOR RELIEF This motion presents a threshold legal defect requiring immediate quash. The County's own submitted evidence (Exhibit J-2) establishes that Petitioner invoked federal protections under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and requested the required interactive process prior to enforcement. Despite this admitted notice, the County neither engaged in that process nor disclosed to the Court that the legality of enforcement remained unresolved. Because the existence of any violation depends on that unresolved federal determination, probable cause cannot be established as a matter of law. The reissued warrant corrects only a clerical defect and does not cure this underlying deficiency. Accordingly, the warrant is legally invalid and must be quashed. Petitioner, Dan Schmitt, pro se, respectfully moves this Court to quash the inspection warrant, and states: I. EMERGENCY NATURE Execution of the inspection warrant is imminent. Once executed, the intrusion cannot be undone. Immediate relief is required to prevent irreparable harm and unlawful enforcement. II. THRESHOLD ISSUE PRESENTED This motion presents a narrow threshold issue: Whether a warrant may issue where the County's own evidence establishes that a federally required process governing enforcement was invoked and remains unresolved. The answer is no. III. CORE DEFECT - COUNTY'S OWN EVIDENCE (EXHIBIT J-2) The warrant fails based on the County's own evidence. In support of its application, the County submitted Exhibit J-2, consisting of Petitioner's written communication invoking protections under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and expressly requesting engagement in the required interactive process prior to enforcement. By submitting Exhibit J-2, the County admits that it had actual notice that: 1. A reasonable accommodation request had been invoked; 2. Federal law requires an interactive process upon such request; and 3. Enforcement actions affecting protected individuals must be evaluated within that process. The same record is reinforced by Petitioner's Supplemental Memorandum of Law, previously provided to the County and incorporated into the evidentiary history of this matter, which sets forth controlling federal authority establishing that procedural accommodations—including pauses or modifications of enforcement timelines—are required where necessary to avoid disability-based discrimination. Despite this, the County: • did not initiate or engage in any interactive process; • did not resolve the accommodation request; and • proceeded directly to seek and obtain a warrant. IV. MATERIAL OMISSION AND FAILURE OF LEGAL PREDICATE The County sought and obtained the warrant without disclosing to the Court that: • a federally protected accommodation process had been invoked; • that process directly governs the legality of enforcement; and • the process remains unresolved. This omission is material. The existence of any alleged violation depends on a legal determination that has not yet been made. Where the controlling legal framework remains unresolved, probable cause cannot be established as a matter of law. This is not a factual dispute—it is a failure of legal predicate. V. REISSUED WARRANT DOES NOT CURE DEFECT The prior warrant was quashed. The reissued warrant corrects only a clerical defect and does not cure the underlying legal deficiency. The same evidentiary record—including Exhibit J-2—remains unchanged. Accordingly, the defect persists. VI. NO LEGITIMATE URGENCY The record reflects no emergent condition justifying immediate enforcement. Instead, the County proceeded despite: • extended periods of delay; • unresolved legal issues; and • actual notice of a pending federal accommodation process. Any claimed urgency is County-created and cannot justify issuance of a warrant. VII. IRREPARABLE HARM Execution of the warrant will result in immediate intrusion and disruption affecting individuals protected under federal law, including rights secured under the FHA and ADA. Such harm cannot be undone. VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court: A. Quash the inspection warrant; B. In the alternative, stay execution of the warrant pending resolution of the reasonable accommodation process; and C. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Dan Schmitt 396 Yucca Rd Naples, FL 34102 314-580-1316 Daninnaples@gmail.com Exhibit J-2 Cover Sheet Petitioner's Written Communication Invoking FHA/ADA Protections for Sober Living Home Description: This exhibit is the letter sent by Petitioner to the County, formally invoking protections under the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. It demonstrates that the enforcement action targeting a sober living home is precisely the kind of scenario these federal protections are meant to address. It requests that enforcement be paused and an interactive process be engaged before any action is taken, to prevent potential human tragedy. • J.2 I am writing to formally reiterate my request for a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), specifically regarding the interactive process that Collier County is required to implement. As you are aware, the Florida law signed by Governor DeSantis House Bill 965—also mandated that such an interactive process be in place by January 1st of this year. So Collier County either met that deadline or they didn't. This is now binary. Despite my repeated requests over the past two and a half years--eight or nine times now—Collier County has either ignored or constructively denied the interactive process. This ongoing neglect constitutes a procedural violation of my rights and constructive denial of reasonable accommodation. This elevates the problem to a due process issue as well as claims for damages and penalties. Respectfully, the ask for a site visit is premature and inappropriate until you engage in the legally required interactive process. I ask once again that you follow the law and initiate the interactive process immediately. Failure to do so continues to erode due process and will be preserved as further procedural misconduct. I look forward to your prompt compliance with state and federal law. Sincerely, Dan Schnitt On Jan 18,2026,at 4:10 PM, Dan Schmitt<daninnaples@gmail.com>wrote: 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, COLLIER COUNTY, vs. Code Case No.:CESD 20260001085 2355 HERITAGE TRAIL LLC,owner's] of 2355 HERITAGE TRAIL, NAPLES, FL 34112 COLLIER COUNTY, FL, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASII INSPECTION WARRANT THIS CAUSE was brought before the Court on an Emergency Motion to Quash Inspection Warrant dated March 27, 2026. The Court if fully advised in the premises, and it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Emergency Motion to Quash Inspection Warrant dated March 27, 2026 is denied. DONE AND ORDERED on this 342 day of A'\ — . , 2026. Rob Crown County Court Judge AA Copies to: Collier County Code Enforcement County Attorney's Office Dan Schmitt IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL, CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, COLLIER COUNTY, Code Case No.:CESI) 20260001085 vs. 2355 HERITAGE TRAIL LLC, owner's] of 2355 HERITAGE, TRAIL, NAPLES, FL 34112 COLLIER COUNTY, FL, ORDER DENYING MOTLON TO QUASH INSPECTION WARRANT THIS CAUSE was brought before the Court on an Emergency Motion to Quash Inspection Warrant dated March 27, 2026. The Court if fully advised in the premises, and it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUI)GEI) that the Emergency Motion to Quash Inspection Warrant dated March 27, 2026 is denied. DONE AND ORDERED on this 3_‘? .t, --' 2026.day of Rob Crown County Court Judge l'56 AC' Copies to: Collier County Code Enforcement County Attorney's Office Dan Schmitt