Skip to main content

Trial set for Oak Street duck case

By Howard B. Owens

Ron Graziaplena is taking his case to trial.

The Oak Street man who has raised the ire of neighbors, and is accused of numerous code violations by the city, will defend himself against the charges in a bench trial before City Court Judge Robert Balbick.

Graziaplena did not appear in court today, but his attorney was present to set the trial date, which is the afternoon of Feb. 21.

Previously: Dispute over ducks, other complaints, has Oak Street man headed to court

Ron C Welker

OMG! Can't they just leave Ronnie alone! The man has dedicated his life as an avid outdoorsman and in his own way contributed to the well being of many of Mother nature's creatures.How can it be all bad doing a good deed?
Good luck Ronnie,

Dec 17, 2010, 3:03pm Permalink
Jason Crater

His mess of a house is extremely detrimental to his neighbor's attempts at selling hers...

She shouldn't suffer becuase of him.

Dec 17, 2010, 4:12pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

I have mixed feelings about humans who opt to create wildlife habitat in populated areas. Personal opinions aside, I should relate:

In the nearby community of Parma (…) a rooster gained celebrity status when a sleep-deprived human made a complaint based on local noise ordinance to stifle the bird's incessant crowing.

The guy who complained works B shift and attempts to sleep during daylight hours. He had been driven into the basement to avoid the racket made by this bird. He asked that the bird be quartered elsewhere on the owner's extensive property to minimize the impact. Rather than cooperate in a neighborly manner, the bird's owner turned the case into a rooster-rights campaign. A guy who only wanted undisturbed sleep has been ridiculed and profiled as anti-rural, anti-small town, anti-animal- you name it.

There was similar complaint in Oakfield, pertaining to pot-bellied pigs being raised in the village.

Gates, Greece and Irondequoit have been in the news recently over dog limitation laws (two/three dogs per property).

Unless one lives with the detraction of residential-quartered animals, day to day, it is far too easy to brush aside the smells, noise, health issues and unsightliness that go with the territory.

And frankly I do NOT favor having such issues handled by court of law. As I have asserted numerous times, the communities that suffer such grievances should arbitrate them with public counsel. The solution to such problems would be far more effectively observed, removed from media hyperbole, sans tax dollars- merely the watchful eye of neighbors and the pain of common sense.

Dec 17, 2010, 4:15pm Permalink
Bob Price

Big difference-the rooster was in a COUNTRY setting-not a city setting. Irritates me to no end when city slickers move to the country,then gripe about farm smells and noises-farm I used to work for in Clarence (actually Newstead)went through this same B.S. years ago.As far as the house in the city goes-looks like hoarding to me........

Dec 17, 2010, 5:12pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

What evidence do you have that the complaint came from a city-slicker? Don't presume the rooster pre-dated the resident who complained. Significantly, the complaint did not require the rooster be removed- only relocated on the property. I remember when Parma was a "country setting;" it is suburban. My father's family farmed in Parma. They now populate the cemetery, and their farms are housing tracts. This could have been worked out to everyone's satisfaction except for turning it into a feud. Whoever sold out Parma's pastoral fantasy- it wasn't those residing in the subdivisions. ...And one rooster doesn't constitute a farm.

Dec 17, 2010, 5:35pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

According to the D & C, the property where the rooster is held didn't meet the minimum requirements for consideration as a farm. As I recall it is a commercial/residential property.

Dec 17, 2010, 5:49pm Permalink
scott williams

I finally figured out where the dear that I seen cross between county building 1 and the old court house was going as it crossed main in between Wendys and Tim Hortons 5 feet from where I was getting out of my vehicle as it headed to austin park he was headed to Mr.Graziaplena's wild life habitat as was the one shot and killed at dunkin doughnuts a few years back,or the one I witnessed jump through the window of a local optician.We all know that is not true anymore than he is being neighborly but that said he has another neighbor on the other side why no complaints there must be he raises ducks to so they can relate.If the city inspectors would do there job it wouldnt get like this the inspectors have a deal with it attitude towards it.But on the other side of the coin im sure there are nit pick complaints going on also.Hey i got a good idea get some cats there legal and they love birds!!

Dec 18, 2010, 12:26pm Permalink

Authentically Local