In another significant case, a noisy rooster on East Live Oak Avenue resulted in a violation for the property owners, Kevin Shane and Janette Weatherly. The owners assured the removal of the rooster, named Smokey, prior to the court date. Upon inspection, compliance was confirmed as the rooster was no longer present. The magistrate clarified that any future similar violation would be considered a repeat offense. Janette Weatherly confirmed that Smokey had been relocated to a farm, and the case was closed without fines or penalties.

During the discussion about the rooster, the complainant emphasized the noise disturbance and its impact on sleep, also mentioning feeling threatened by the rooster’s owner. The owner rebutted that the complaint extended beyond the rooster to include other issues such as garbage disposal and alleged threats. A neighbor testified on the rooster’s behalf, disputing its nuisance classification. The magistrate highlighted the importance of neighborly relations and the need to address noise disturbances, advising respectful interactions and discouraging negative exchanges on social media.

The meeting also addressed a case where the property representative was unaware of a violation due to notices being sent to an incorrect address. The violation was corrected before the representative was informed, following the eviction of a tenant and property cleanup. The representative contested the fine amount, considering it disproportionate due to their lack of violation knowledge. The magistrate inquired about the correction, which was confirmed. The case was discussed further concerning the excessive fine of $47,500, which surpassed the property’s value. The city had incurred approximately $1,500 in related costs. The magistrate proposed deferring the case until the city council could review the fines process for potential changes, and the property owner agreed to this approach, with a review scheduled in three months.

Another case involved a property on Dy Avenue, with numerous violations observed over time. The magistrate ordered the respondent to correct the violations within 120 days and contact the code enforcement office for reinspection. Questions arose about the property’s occupancy and demolition timeline, with the magistrate inquiring about the family’s awareness of possible assistance from the Community Redevelopment Agency.

The magistrate ordered Marie Daniels, the respondent for a property on Dorsy Avenue, to address violations within 90 days, imposing a $75 fine due to the hazard it posed to children and vagrants. The estate of Robert H. McNight was ordered to correct violations on Lincoln Street within 60 days, with a potential fine of $50 per day for non-compliance. At 160 Leon Street, the magistrate issued a warning notice for chipping and peeling paint and instructed the code enforcement officer to monitor a transient person residing there. The magistrate emphasized the importance of compliance to address public health, safety, and welfare concerns, and in the case of Lincoln Street, the involvement of Walton County Mosquito Control for mosquito eradication.