LTC 045-2019 Combined Noise Report-Quarterly Noise Report Q2-2018 (April-June, 2018) and Annual Noise Report 2017-2018 (July 2017-June 2018)MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach , 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach , FL 33139 , www .miamibeachfl.gov
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NO . LTC# 045-2019 LETTER TO COMM ISSION
TO : Mayor Dan Gelber and Members o
FROM : Jimmy L. Morales , City Manager
DATE: January 23 , 2019
SUBJECT : Combined Noise Report:
Quarterly Noise Report 02-20 8 (April -June, 2018) and
Annua l Noise Report 2017-2018 (July 2017 -June 2018)
This Letter to the Mayo r and City Commission (LTC) provides noise data and analysis on the Code
Compliance Department 's (Code) enforcement efforts regarding the city 's noise ordinance . The
analysis includes both the quarterly report 02-2018 (April 1, 2018 -June 30, 2018) and the annual
noise report which reflects data from July 1 , 2017 through June 30 , 2018. The data presented in
this LTC is submitted in accordance to the requirements establ ished in the 2008 No ise
Administrative Guidelines , which were adopted via resolution and approved on October 7 , 2008 .
The information provided in this report is based on the data obtained from Energov, the database
utilized by Code to track all cases , including noise complaints. The report includes the following
documentation :
• Attachment A: Deta iled data table for all noise cases for the period from July 1, 2017 -
June 30, 2018.
• Attachment 8 : Detailed data table for all noise cases for 02-2018.
• Attachment C: Disposition of noise cases presented to, filed for appeal , or scheduled
to be heard at Special Master Hearings for 02-2018.
I. Summary of Annual Report Data
During the reporting period for July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 a total of 3, 737 noise complaint
cases were received. Of the 3,737 total cases , 560 were routed to the Police Department (Police)
as the request was received during hours that Code does not operate, 54 were canceled by the
complainant and 19 were determined to not be applicable to Code .
When the above referenced 633 cases are removed from the total number of cases opened the
result is 3,104 cases having been addressed by Code. During the annual evaluation period, a total
of 452 cases resulted in a notice of violation , written or verbal warning resulting in an overall validity
rate of 14.56% for all noise cases handled by Code .
Loud music remains the most common type of noise complaint (2,207 cases, 71.1 %) followed by
construction-related noise (563 cases, 18.1% ). As it relates to the day of the week , Saturday
continues to be the day with the highest incidents of noise complaints (774 cases, 24 .1 %).
LTC: Annual Noise Report 2017-18 and Q2-2018 Noise Report (April-June 2018)
Page 2 of4
BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL CASES BY TYPE
July 2017 -June 2018
Number of Percentage of
cases handled by cases Code
RESIDENTIAL 1,892 60.95%
COMMERCIAL 741 23 .87%
OTHER 463 14 .92%
UNKNOWN 8 0.26%
TOTAL 3,104 100%
Historically, noise complaints in residentially zoned areas make up more than half of all noise cases.
As illustrated in the chart above, this reporting year is no different.
II. Summary of Quarter 2 -2018
During 02-2018, there were a total of 923 noise cases opened and/or investigated by either Code
or Police. Of these, 130 cases were routed to or addressed by Police during periods that Code does
not operate, nine cases were canceled by the complainant prior to the Code's arrival and three
cases were deemed not applicable to Code .
When the above referenced 142 cases are subtracted from the total number of noise investigations,
the result is 781 cases with a disposition . The disposition reflects several possible outcomes
including whether the noise complaint met or failed to meet the noise threshold. During the rating
period, of the 781 cases, 102 were deemed as meeting the threshold of being excessive , unusual
and/or unnecessary; resulting in an aggregate noise validity rate of 13.1 %.
This quarter continues the trend with loud music as the most common type of noise complaint (567
cases , 72 .6%) followed by construction-related noise (141 cases, 18.1 %). As it relates to day of
the week, Saturday continues to be the day with the highest incidents of noise complaints (227
cases, 29 .1%).
The analysis for 02-2018 indicates that of the total 781 cases addressed by Code, 475 (60.8%)
were identified to have taken place in residential areas; 157 (20.1 %) were identified to have taken
place in commercially zoned properties, and 145 (18 .6%) took place within the public right-of-way
or on public property . The chart below reflects this information.
BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL CASES BY TYPE
April 2018-June 2018
Number of Percentage of
Cases cases handled by
Code
RESIDENTIAL 475 60 .8%
COMMERCIAL 157 20 .1%
OTHER 145 18.6%
UNKNOWN 4 0 .5%
TOTAL 781 100%
Attachment B provides details regarding the location of the noise complaint or proactive
assessment, (e.g. apartment, bar, club , condominium , etc .), as well as noise type (e.g. loud music,
construction noise, barking dog, etc.). The attachment also reflects noise cases by time and day,
and day of the week.
LTC: Annual Noise Report 2017-18 and 02-2018 Noise Report (April-June 2018)
Page 3 of4
The reasons why a noise complaint failed to meet the threshold to issue a notice of violation or
warning indicates that in approximately 85.71% of the complaints, the noise level either failed
to meet the excessive, unusual and/or unnecessary threshold, or there was no noise
identified upon arrival by the Code Compliance Officer (CCO). The table immediately below
provides detailed information on all outcomes based on the assessment of the responding ceo.
TOTAL CASES
THAT FAILED TO No Noise Music/Noise No Access I Music/Noise
MEET NOISE Upon Not Loud nor After 11 PM -Not No Access Exemption Other lowered prior
THRESHOLD Arrival Excessive audible at 1OOft. Code Granted to arrival per
679 comp lainant
301 176 93 34 35 28 12
PERCENTAGES 44.3% 25.9% 13.7% 5.0% 5.2% 4.1% 1.8%
Response time can be a crucial element in responding to noise complaints. The table below
provides the response time, by establishment type for 02-2018. Response time is described as
the period between the time the complaint is received by the Parking Department's Dispatcher, and
"arrival time" to the location by a ceo.
Average Time for Code Officer to Arrive (02-2018)
Average Average Time from
Time to Call Received by
Number of Establishment Officer's Number Dispatch to Code
Cases* Type Arrival Status of Cases* Officer's Arrival
Residential VALID 48 0:19:21
0:23 :15 NON-VALID 419 0:23 :42
770 Commercial 0 :20 :58
VALID 14 0:34:46
NON-VALID 124 0:19:24
Other VALID 18 0:19 :52 0:19:09 NON-VALID 147 0:19:03
All Cases
0 :22:10
0 :19:19
*AI.€rage Time Calculated using only those cases with valid time data for both "Time Call Receil.€d by
Dispatch" and "Time of Arrival by Code Officer"
During 02-2018, there were several noise-related major events including Winter Music Conference
and Spring Break. These events are associated with music-related activities which historically
contribute to an increase in noise complaints.
Ill. Special Master Appeal Hearings
As required by Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes , and part of due-process , noise violations are
appealable before a special master. Attachment C reflects the resolution and/or status of noise-
related cases appealed as of this reporting period .
During the evaluation period there were 24 noise-related cases pending appeal before the special
master. Of these, 18 had yet to be heard and the dispositions of the remaining six cases are as
follows:
• one case was reclassified to a written warning , and
• five cases were dismissed by the special master.
LTC: Annual Noise Report 2017-18 and Q2-2018 Noise Report (April-June 2018)
Page 4 of4
VI. Conclusion
Code will soon be implementing mobile printers for issuing notices/violations in the field to increase
efficiency. This along with the Body Worn Cameras and a significant increase in both field and
academic training continues to improve Code's business processes and delivery of services.
J LM/SMT /HC/SKS/rfm
Attachments
Attachment A: Noise Case Data, July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018
Attachment B: Noise Case Data, 02-2018
Attachment C: Special Master Case Result Summary, 02-2018
F:ICODEI$ADM\NOISE\Annual and 02-2018 Noise L TC\02-2018 and Annual LTC (2019-01-23).docx
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
A
I
No
i
s
e
Da
t
a
07
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
7
-
0
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
(A
N
N
U
A
L
)
I
To
t
a
l
Ca
s
e
s
Op
e
n
e
d
3,
7
3
7
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Ty
p
e
Le
s
s
Vo
i
d
e
d
,
Ca
n
c
e
l
e
d
,
Du
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
Co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
,
Co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
no
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
to
o
r
ha
n
d
l
e
d
by
Co
d
e
Co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
63
3
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
Ca
s
e
s
To
t
a
l
wi
t
h
Di
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
3,
1
0
4
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
Al
l
Ca
s
e
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
=
Ba
r
,
Cl
u
b
,
Ho
t
e
l
,
Ho
t
e
l
-
C
o
n
d
o
,
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
,
Re
t
a
i
l
,
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ot
h
e
r
=
Ba
n
d
s
h
e
/
1
,
Be
a
c
h
,
Pu
b
l
i
c
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
et
c
.
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
Ca
s
e
s
Pr
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
Ca
s
e
s
9
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
Ca
s
e
s
Co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
Ca
l
l
s
Re
c
e
i
v
e
d
3,
0
9
5
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
Ca
s
e
s
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
Ca
s
e
s
Disposition of All No i se Cases Type # Total Cases 3,737 Referred to MBPD 560 Canceled by Complainant 54 NotA licable to Code 19 Total Cases handled by Code 3,104 Valid Cases 452 Non-valid Case~_ _ ____ _ _ ~.6?L _
T
o
t
a
i
C
a
e
s
Va
l
i
d
Ca
s
e
s
No
n
-
V
a
l
i
d
Ca
s
e
s
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
Al
l
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Ca
s
e
s
Ca
s
e
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Ca
s
e
s
Ca
s
e
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Ca
s
e
s
Ca
s
e
s
AP
T
78
5
25
.3%
72
2
.3%
71
3
23
.0%
BA
R
11
2
3 .6%
2
1
0 .7%
91
2
.9%
CL
U
B
S
60
1 .9%
1 0
0 .3%
50
1 .6%
CO
N
D
O
63
2
20
.
4
%
95
3 .
1%
53
7
17
.
3
%
CO
N
D
O
-
H
O
T
E
L
91
2
.9%
13
0.
4
%
78
2
.5%
HO
M
E
47
5
15
.
3
%
89
2
.9 %
38
6
12
.
4
%
OT
H
E
R
46
3
14
.
9
%
7 2
2
.3%
39
1
12
.6 %
RE
S
T AU
R
A
N
T
22
5
7 .2%
4
7
1 .5 %
17
8
5 .7%
RE
T
A
I
L
8
0
.3 %
0
0 .0 %
8
0 .3 %
HO
T
E
L
24
5
7 .9%
3 3
1 .
1 %
21
2
6
.8%
UN
K
N
O
W
N
8
0 .3%
0
0 .0
%
8
0 .3 %
To
t
a
l
s
3
1
0
4
10
0
%
45
2
14
.
6
%
2
65
2
85
.4%
VA
L
I
D
1
1
p
-
7a
Da
y
of
We
e
k
To
t
a
l
7a
-1
1
p
(o
f
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
mo
r
n
i
n
g
)
Mo
n
d
a
y
33
7 .3%
27
6.
0
%
6
1.
3
%
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
38
8.
4
%
28
6.
2
%
10
2.
2
%
We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
36
8.
0
%
26
5.
8
%
10
2.
2
%
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
66
14
.6%
44
9.
7
%
22
4.
9
%
Fr
i
d
a
y
72
15
.
9
%
27
6.
0
%
45
10
.0%
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
14
3
31
.
6
%
72
15
.
9
%
71
15
.7%
Su
n
d
a
y
64
14
.
2
%
46
10
.
2
%
18
4 .0%
To
t
a
l
s
45
2
10
0
%
27
0
59
.
7
%
18
2
40
.3%
-
NO
N
-
V
A
L
I
D
Da
y
of
We
e
k
To
t
a
l
7a
-1
1
p
1
1
p
-
7a
(o
f
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
mo
r
n
i
n
g
)
Mo
n
d
a
y
29
1
11
.
0
%
20
0
7.
5
%
91
3 .4%
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
26
1
9.
8
%
18
5
7.
0
%
76
2.
9
%
We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
26
5
10
.
0
%
19
0
7.
2
%
75
2 .8%
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
35
8
13
.
5
%
20
0
7.
5
%
15
8
6.
0
%
Fr
i
d
a
y
41
8
15
.
8
%
19
7
7.
4
%
22
1
8.
3
%
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
60
6
22
.
9
%
32
9
12
.
4
%
27
7
10
.
4
%
Su
n
d
a
y
45
3
17
.
1%
35
1
13
.
2
%
10
2
3 .8%
To
t
a
l
s
26
5
2
10
0
%
16
5
2
62
.3%
10
0
0
37
.
7
%
16
2
5
.2%
63
2.
0
%
99
3.
2
%
99
1
31
.
9
%
15
6
5 .0%
83
5
26
.9%
9
0
.3%
9
0.
3
%
0
0 .0%
58
1 .9%
25
0.
8
%
33
1 .1%
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
B
I
.
-
m
•
•
u
-
No
i
s
e
Da
t
a
04
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
-
0
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
(Q
2
-
2
0
1
8
)
I
To
t
a
l
Ca
s
e
s
Op
e
n
e
d
92
3
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Ty
p
e
Le
s
s
Vo
i
d
e
d
,
Ca
n
c
e
l
e
d
,
uu
p
u
c
a
t
e
l
Co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
,
Co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
to
o
r
ha
n
d
l
e
d
by
14
2
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Ca
s
e
s
To
t
a
l
wi
t
h
Di
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
78
1
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
Al
l
Ca
s
e
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
= Ba
r
,
Cl
u
b
,
Ho
t
e
l
,
Ho
t
e
l
-
C
o
n
d
o
,
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
,
Re
t
a
i
l
,
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ot
h
e
r
=
Ba
n
d
s
h
e
/
1
,
Be
a
c
h
,
Pu
b
l
i
c
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
et
c
.
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Ca
s
e
s
Pr
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
Ca
s
e
s
4
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
Ca
s
e
s
Co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
Ca
l
l
s
Re
c
e
i
v
e
d
77
7
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Ca
s
e
s
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
Ca
s
e
s
Disposition of All Noise Cases Type #
To
t
a
l
Cases 923 I Referred to MBPD 130 Canceled by Complainant 9 Not Applicable to Code 3
To
t
a
l
Valid and Non-Valid Cases 781
ha
n
d
l
e
d
by Code Valid Cases 102 Non-valid Cases 679 I
To
t
a
l
C
.
.
Va
l
l
d
C
a
a
e
s
No
n
-
V
a
l
i
d
C
.
.
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Ca
s
e
s
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
Al
l
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Ca
s
e
s
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Ca
s
e
s
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
Ca
s
e
s
Ca
s
e
s
Ca
s
e
s
AP
T
21
1
27
.
0
%
17
2.
2
%
19
4
24
.
8
%
BA
R
20
2.
6
%
6
0.
8
%
14
1 .8%
CL
U
B
S
9
1.
2
%
3
0.
4
%
6
0
.8%
CO
N
D
O
15
0
19
.
2
%
20
2.
6
%
13
0
16
.
6
%
CO
N
D
O
-
H
O
T
E
L
17
2.
2
%
3
0.
4
%
14
1 .8%
HO
M
E
11
4
14
.
6
%
14
1.
8
%
10
0
12
.
8
%
OT
H
E
R
14
5
18
.
6
%
23
2.
9
%
12
2
15
.6%
RE
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
48
6.
1
%
12
1.
5
%
36
4
.6%
RE
T
A
I
L
4
0.
5
%
0
0.
0
%
4
0
.5%
HO
T
E
L
59
7 .6%
4
0.
5
%
55
7
.0%
UN
K
N
O
W
N
4
0.
5
%
0
0.
0
%
4
0
.5%
To
t
a
l
s
78
1
10
0
%
10
2
13
.
1
%
67
9
86
.
9
%
VA
L
I
D
Da
y
of
We
e
k
To
t
a
l
7a
-1
1
p
11
p
-
7a
(o
f
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
mo
r
n
i
n
g
)
Mo
n
d
a
y
7
6.
9
%
6
5
.9%
1
1.
0
%
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
7
6
.9%
7
6.
9
%
0
0 .0%
We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
12
11
.
8
%
9
8.
8
%
3
2
.9%
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
15
14
.7%
10
9.
8
%
5
4 .9%
Fr
i
d
a
y
18
17
.6%
7
6
.9%
11
10
.
8
%
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
35
34
.
3
%
19
18
.
6
%
16
15
.
7
%
Su
n
d
a
y
8
7
.8%
6
5.
9
%
2
2.
0
%
To
t
a
l
s
10
2
10
0
%
64
62
.
7
%
38
37
.
3
%
NO
N
-
V
A
L
I
D
Da
y
of
We
e
k
To
t
a
l
7a
-1
1
p
1
1
p
-
7a
{o
f
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
mo
r
n
i
n
g
)
Mo
n
d
a
y
82
12
.
1
%
57
8.
4
%
25
3 .7%
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
64
9.
4
%
43
6
.3%
21
3.
1
%
We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
75
11
.
0
%
52
7.
7
%
23
3.
4
%
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
72
10
.
6
%
42
6
.2%
30
4.
4
%
Fr
i
d
a
y
91
13
.
4
%
47
6.
9
%
44
6
.5%
Sa
t
u
r da
y
19
2
28
.3%
11
0
16
.
2
%
82
12
.1%
Su
n
d
a
y
10
3
15
.
2
%
81
11
.9%
22
3
.2%
To
t
a
l
s
67
9
10
0
%
43
2
63
.
6
%
24
7
36
.
4
%
IA
n
n
n
v
m
n
u
s
wi
t
h
Co
n
t
a
c
t
ma
d
e
32
4 .
1%
18
2 .3
%
14
1 .8%
24
3
31
.1%
32
4.
1
%
21
1
27
.0%
4
0 .5%
4
0.
5
%
0
0 .0%
19
2.
4
%
11
1 .4%
8
1.
0
%
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
C
7/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
-
Ca
s
e
amended to a written warning . The
$1
0
0
.
0
0
ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
court cost fee shall be returned to
Pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
.
1 2/
0
9
/
2
0
1
7
I
12
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
7
I
SM
N
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
0
3
2
I
NC
2
0
1
7
-
0
5
4
3
9
11
3
1
5
14
T
H
ST
IJ
V
Ho
l
d
i
n
gs
14
0
0
,
LL
C
14
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
8
-
Di
s
m
i
s
s
e
d
.
The $100 .00 administrative court
co
s
t
sh
a
l
l
be
re
t
u
r
n
e
d
to Petitioner.
1 2/
1
0
/
2
0
1 7
12
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
7
SM
N
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
0
3
4
NC
2
0
1
7
-
0
5
4
6
2
17
0
1
CO
L
L
I
N
S
AV
E
17
0
1
Mi
a
m
i
Op
e
r
a
t
o
r
LL
C
db
a
SL
S
6/
1
4
/
2
0
1
8
-A
g
r
e
e
d
Order. Reclassified as a Written Warning .
So
u
t
h
Be
a
c
h
1 2/
1
6
/
2
0
1
7
12
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
7
SM
N
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
0
3
5
NC
2 01
7
-
0
5
5
4
3
92
8
OC
E
A
N
DR
De
c
o
w
a
l
k
Ho
t
e
l
&
Go
l
f
Cl
u
b
,
LL
C
4/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
-
Di
s
m
i
s
s
e
d
. The $100.00 administrative court
co
s
t
fe
e
sh
a
l
l
be
returned to Petitioner.
1 2/
2
8
/
2
0
1
7
I
01
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
8
I
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
3
7
I
NC
2
0
1
7
-
0
5
6
7
2
19
2
8
OC
E
A
N
DR
I
De
c
o
w
a
l
k
Ho
t
e
l
&
Go
l
f
Cl
u
b
,
LL
C
14
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
Di
s
m
i
s
s
e
d
.
The $100 .00 administrative court cost
fe
e
sh
a
l
l
be
r
et
u
r
n
e
d
to Petitioner.
01
/
0
1
/
2
0
1 8
I
01
/
0
4
/
2
0
1
8
I
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
3
6
I
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
5
7
3
9
11
7
0
1
CO
L
L
I
N
S
AV
E
11
7
0
1
Mi
a
m
i
LL
C
d/
b
/
a
SL
S
SO
U
T
H
16
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
8
-
Ag
r
e
e
d
Order. Dismissed.
BE
A
C
H
01
/
1
4
/
2
0
1 8
I
0
1
/
1 6/
2
0
1
8
I
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
3
8
I
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
5
8
8
2
19
6
0
OC
E
A
N
DR
ls
o
B
E
U S A
LL
C
d/
b
/
a
OC
E
A
N
S
TE
N
16
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
8
Th
i
s
case is Dismissed. The $100.00
ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
co
u
r
t
co s t fee shall be returned to Petitioner .
/2
0
/
2
0
1
8
01
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
3
9
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
5
9
6
7
20
0
0
CO
L
L
I
N
S
AV
E
Ba
g
a
t
e
l
l
e
M i am
i
9/
6
/
1
8
Ag
r
e
e
d
Order to pay $1,000 with 30 days.
02
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
8
02
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
4
0
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
6
3
0
2
12
3
7
LI
N
C
O
L
N
RD
Mo
l
t
o
B e n e
L LC
02
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
8
02
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-00
0
4
1
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
6
3
1
4
12
3
7
LI
N
C
O
L
N
RD
Mo
l to
B e n e
LL
C
02
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
8
02
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
4
2
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
6
3
1
5
11
0
0
WE
S
T
AV
E
11
0
0
We
s t
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
LL
C
d/
b
/
a
MO
N
D
R
I
A
N
SO
U
T
H
BE
A
C
H
'"
"'
"
'
'
"
"
'
0
'
02
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
I
03
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
8
I
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
4
3
I
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
6
3
9
8
18
3
4
0
BY
R
O
N
AV
E
1 Er
v
i
n
Ol
i
v
a
r
s
8/
2
3
/
2
0
1
8
Th
i
s
case is Dismissed . The $100 .00
ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
co
u
r
t
cost fee shall be returned to Pet i tione r .
03
/
0
4
/
2
0
1
8
I
03
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
8
I
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
4
4
I
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
6
4
7
1
19
6
0
OC
E
A
N
DR
IS
o
b
o
US
A
,
LL
C
17
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
Di
s
m
i
s
s
e
d
. The $100 .00 administrative court cost
fe
e
sh
a
l
l
be
re
t
u
r
n
e
d
to Petitioner .
03
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
8
03
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
4
5
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
6
7
3
3
21
2
0
BA
Y
AV
E
Gr
e
g
o
r
y
Mi
r
m
e
l
l
i
8/
2
3
/
2
0
1
8
Di
s
m
i
s
s
e
d
.
The $100 .00 administrative court cost
fe
e
sh
a
l
l
be
re
t
u
r
n
e
d
to Petitioner .
i/
0
5
/
2
0
1
8
05
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
4
6
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
7
3
2
4
80
0
E
E
Dl
LI
D
O
DR
Ar
b
o
r
Ho
l
d
i
n
g
s
SM
11
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
0
5
/
1 1/
2
0
1 8
05
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
4
7
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
7
3
9
5
10
2
0
OC
E
A
N
DR
Cl
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
e
r
So
u
t
h
Be
a
c
h
9/
1
3
/
1
8
Pe
r
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Request, case closed with no fine .
Da
t
e
of
Vi
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
Re
q
u
e
s
t
Fi
l
e
d
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ma
s
t
e
r
Ca
s
e
Co
d
e
Ca
s
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Na
m
e
Status
Nu
m
b
e
r
05
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
8
05
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
4
8
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
7
4
5
9
13
3
0
OC
E
A
N
DR
C-
1
7
Tw
i
n
91
8
,
LL
C
SM
10
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
8
05
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
8
05
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
4
9
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
7
4
6
7
13
3
0
OC
E
A
N
DR
C-
1
7
Tw
i
n
91
8
,
LL
C
SM
10
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
8
05
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
06
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
5
0
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
7
5
3
0
10
2
4
OC
E
A
N
DR
CU
A
1
0
0
So
u
t
h
Be
a
c
h
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
LL
C
d/
b
/
a
SO
C
I
A
L
SM
10
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
8
CA
F
E
05
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
8
06
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
5
1
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
7
5
8
1
11
0
0
WE
S
T
AV
E
11
0
0
We
s
t
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
LL
C
d/
b
/
a
8/
2
3
/
2
0
1
8
Ag
r
e
e
d
Order. Case Dismissed. Petitioner shall
MO
N
D
R
I
A
N
SO
U
T
H
BE
A
C
H
pa
y
th
e
$1
,
0
0
0
fi
n
e
within 30 days.
06
/
0
6
/
2
0
1
8
06
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
5
2
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
7
6
4
4
73
4
5
BY
R
O
N
AV
E
3
73
4
5
By
r
o
n
Av
e
n
u
e
LL
C
SM
11
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
06
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
8
07
/
0
6
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
5
4
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
7
8
3
5
15
0
0
BA
Y
RD
83
6
5
Pa
t
r
i
c
k
Ke
n
n
e
d
y
SM
10
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
8
06
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
8
07
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
5
3
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
7
8
5
0
47
8
0
PI
N
E
TR
E
E
DR
4
Lo
r
r
a
i
n
e
Ku
t
n
e
r
SM
12
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
8
08
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
8
08
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
5
5
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
8
1
9
4
92
8
OC
E
A
N
DR
De
c
o
w
a
l
k
Ho
t
e
l
&
Go
l
f
Cl
u
b
d/
b
/
a
SM
02
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
VO
O
D
O
O
08
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
8
08
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
5
6
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
8
2
0
3
13
3
0
OC
E
A
N
DR
C-
5
1
Tw
i
n
91
8
,
LL
C
SM
10
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
8
08
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
8
08
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
5
7
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
8
2
1
9
13
3
0
OC
E
A
N
DR
C-
5
1
Tw
i
n
91
8
,
LL
C
SM
10
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
8
09
/
0
9
/
2
0
1
8
09
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
8
SM
N2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
5
8
NC
2
0
1
8
-
0
8
5
3
6
47
8
0
PI
N
E
TR
E
E
DR
Lo
r
r
a
i
n
e
Ku
t
n
e
r
SM
01
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
9