1.Next door asphalt plant has license? We heard they have one from city, but city does not govern license for asphalt business. Until now we still do not know they have license or not since city confirmed there was no license for them in city’s database.
這是你們需要舉證的,不是讓政府單位來證明....所以這裡不應該是問句,而是陳束事實....
这里的问题是我们从未看见过他们的营业执照，全是市政府和环境部在那说来说去，也没个字据。但这件事很可疑，至今没人明确回答他们到底有吗？哪儿来的？
2.Noise issue, by-law Chapter 591, our property should be considered as residential area, and that senior home should be quiet zone. So it should be prohibited that equipment operation during night time, Sunday and holiday in this site. Also our tenants found in Ontario many asphalt plants are not permitted to operate in night time, why this one which is adjacent to our property and so closed to the senior home can operate 24 hours 7 days?
你需要提供具体的數據,例如某年某月某日,在幾點幾分用什麼樣的器材,錄得的噪音分貝數為多少,同時是誰紀錄的,誰見證的,原始資料存在那裡...
(噪音產生的連續性與來源必須明確標示,同時紀錄設備的位置與離噪音音緣的距離需要明確標示...(這些資料需要是一個獨立的附件)
这是很大的问题。只有我在一年多的时间里电话账单上记录半夜，凌晨打电话到市政府和环境部投诉，有两次警察到现场，那是去年的事，警察听到和看到机器轰鸣的可怕景象。但他们说这样已经好几年了，市政府应该管，不关警察的事。
3.We also require MOE to test dust in our place. The MOE officers took samples on May 7 & May 8, 2015. June 22 when Karen was here, I asked test result, she said: it is hard to say the dust is from asphalt plant, it could from city garbage transfer station, from go-train, from street. I told our tenants, they were angry, some called Karen, left message, did not get call back. We disagree with what MOE said, and want to talk with MOE about this.
你需要僱用獨立的第三者進行至少 60 -90 天連續觀測,同時必須同時提供氣象紀錄包括風向與風速,基本上你們必須證明這是連續同時是長期的影響而不是受到風巷與風速所造成的突發事件....你現在這個資料有相當多的問題...
这也是个问题，环境部的人看见，也取样，但不承认是可以证明来自沥青厂。
4.Zoning by-law this area recycling operation and storage should be within a building. The asphalt plant uses waste asphalt/concrete to make asphalt, their operation and storage are out door. Their operation and storage should not be allowed.
同樣,你的證據在那裡? 是否有俱有公信力企第三方來驗證這個資料的真實與準確性...
这个有市政府的Zoning by-law，有这个条款，另外沥青厂机器和储存在室外，大家看得见。
5.We also found next door asphalt plant use some equipment without ECA since last year, they took down one part early this year, but still use some. We do ask MOE to check their equipment with the ECA they got.
同樣,你的證據在那裡? 是否有俱有公信力企第三方來驗證這個資料的真實與準確性...
我们复印了环境部的许可证，上面有列明什么东西他们申请了，批准了，可以用。他们后来又申请添加，但还没批，他们使用，我们和环境部的人都知道。环境部不回答这个问题。
6.We found some info the asphalt plant submitted to MOE for applying ECA are not true, we want MOE to check out.
同樣,你的證據在那裡? 是否有俱有公信力企第三方來驗證這個資料的真實與準確性...
我们也复印了他们的申请资料，使去环境部看的，公众可以看，除了沥青厂到居民区的距离造假（他们说500米，实际250米），他们还说他们的管理污染的手段包括：在不用的储存堆上盖毛毡，从来没有；在门前竖牌放上电话号码，以便公众投诉，如果有污染，从来没有，连个单位名称都不告诉，很多人告了多年状，包括市议员，不知道它的名字等等。
7.More important thing is: at the beginning when they applied for their first ECA, surrounding land use info was incorrect, they were/are too closed to sensitive land use, even too closed to municipal zoned residential area. The ECA should not be issued.
請定義,什麼是" sensitive land use",相關法規? 这个法律上有写明，就是和工业不直接有关的用地，比如学校，商场等等，居民是24小时全天候的sensitive land use，现在环境部和市政府采取只承认居民区的办法，将我们最近的几个投诉人减到最少，实际上法律对不利影响的定义是对全体人民，没有分别对待。
同時 請定義,什麼是" too closed to municipal zoned residential area",相關法規? (你的丈量的證據在那裡? 誰做的? 是否是否有俱有公信力的第三方來驗證這個資料的真實與準確性...
环境部的指南说重工业和非工业用地最小间隔300米，那个老人院和沥青厂的距离是我用电子信件问市政府我们地区规划员得来的。我的邻居也量出一样的结果250米，小于300米，更不是他们说的500米。有目的地欺骗，能错的如此离谱吗？
8.Ontario Environmental Protection Act Section 14 prohibits any discharge of contaminants into the natural environment if those contaminants cause or may cause an adverse effect. The EPA defines “adverse effect” as one or more of:
(a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it,
(b) injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life,
(c) harm or material discomfort to any person,
(d) an adverse effect on the health of any person,
(e) impairment of the safety of any person,
(f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use,
(g) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property, and
(h) interference with the normal conduct of business.
The above adverse effects can be found in our property easily. We disagree MOE says it’s already proved their operation no adverse effect.
您想象也能知道一个露天沥青厂在旁边能不又脏又吵吗？
這是你們需要舉證的,不是讓政府單位來證明....所以這裡不應該是問句,而是陳束事實....
这里的问题是我们从未看见过他们的营业执照，全是市政府和环境部在那说来说去，也没个字据。但这件事很可疑，至今没人明确回答他们到底有吗？哪儿来的？
2.Noise issue, by-law Chapter 591, our property should be considered as residential area, and that senior home should be quiet zone. So it should be prohibited that equipment operation during night time, Sunday and holiday in this site. Also our tenants found in Ontario many asphalt plants are not permitted to operate in night time, why this one which is adjacent to our property and so closed to the senior home can operate 24 hours 7 days?
你需要提供具体的數據,例如某年某月某日,在幾點幾分用什麼樣的器材,錄得的噪音分貝數為多少,同時是誰紀錄的,誰見證的,原始資料存在那裡...
(噪音產生的連續性與來源必須明確標示,同時紀錄設備的位置與離噪音音緣的距離需要明確標示...(這些資料需要是一個獨立的附件)
这是很大的问题。只有我在一年多的时间里电话账单上记录半夜，凌晨打电话到市政府和环境部投诉，有两次警察到现场，那是去年的事，警察听到和看到机器轰鸣的可怕景象。但他们说这样已经好几年了，市政府应该管，不关警察的事。
3.We also require MOE to test dust in our place. The MOE officers took samples on May 7 & May 8, 2015. June 22 when Karen was here, I asked test result, she said: it is hard to say the dust is from asphalt plant, it could from city garbage transfer station, from go-train, from street. I told our tenants, they were angry, some called Karen, left message, did not get call back. We disagree with what MOE said, and want to talk with MOE about this.
你需要僱用獨立的第三者進行至少 60 -90 天連續觀測,同時必須同時提供氣象紀錄包括風向與風速,基本上你們必須證明這是連續同時是長期的影響而不是受到風巷與風速所造成的突發事件....你現在這個資料有相當多的問題...
这也是个问题，环境部的人看见，也取样，但不承认是可以证明来自沥青厂。
4.Zoning by-law this area recycling operation and storage should be within a building. The asphalt plant uses waste asphalt/concrete to make asphalt, their operation and storage are out door. Their operation and storage should not be allowed.
同樣,你的證據在那裡? 是否有俱有公信力企第三方來驗證這個資料的真實與準確性...
这个有市政府的Zoning by-law，有这个条款，另外沥青厂机器和储存在室外，大家看得见。
5.We also found next door asphalt plant use some equipment without ECA since last year, they took down one part early this year, but still use some. We do ask MOE to check their equipment with the ECA they got.
同樣,你的證據在那裡? 是否有俱有公信力企第三方來驗證這個資料的真實與準確性...
我们复印了环境部的许可证，上面有列明什么东西他们申请了，批准了，可以用。他们后来又申请添加，但还没批，他们使用，我们和环境部的人都知道。环境部不回答这个问题。
6.We found some info the asphalt plant submitted to MOE for applying ECA are not true, we want MOE to check out.
同樣,你的證據在那裡? 是否有俱有公信力企第三方來驗證這個資料的真實與準確性...
我们也复印了他们的申请资料，使去环境部看的，公众可以看，除了沥青厂到居民区的距离造假（他们说500米，实际250米），他们还说他们的管理污染的手段包括：在不用的储存堆上盖毛毡，从来没有；在门前竖牌放上电话号码，以便公众投诉，如果有污染，从来没有，连个单位名称都不告诉，很多人告了多年状，包括市议员，不知道它的名字等等。
7.More important thing is: at the beginning when they applied for their first ECA, surrounding land use info was incorrect, they were/are too closed to sensitive land use, even too closed to municipal zoned residential area. The ECA should not be issued.
請定義,什麼是" sensitive land use",相關法規? 这个法律上有写明，就是和工业不直接有关的用地，比如学校，商场等等，居民是24小时全天候的sensitive land use，现在环境部和市政府采取只承认居民区的办法，将我们最近的几个投诉人减到最少，实际上法律对不利影响的定义是对全体人民，没有分别对待。
同時 請定義,什麼是" too closed to municipal zoned residential area",相關法規? (你的丈量的證據在那裡? 誰做的? 是否是否有俱有公信力的第三方來驗證這個資料的真實與準確性...
环境部的指南说重工业和非工业用地最小间隔300米，那个老人院和沥青厂的距离是我用电子信件问市政府我们地区规划员得来的。我的邻居也量出一样的结果250米，小于300米，更不是他们说的500米。有目的地欺骗，能错的如此离谱吗？
8.Ontario Environmental Protection Act Section 14 prohibits any discharge of contaminants into the natural environment if those contaminants cause or may cause an adverse effect. The EPA defines “adverse effect” as one or more of:
(a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it,
(b) injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life,
(c) harm or material discomfort to any person,
(d) an adverse effect on the health of any person,
(e) impairment of the safety of any person,
(f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use,
(g) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property, and
(h) interference with the normal conduct of business.
The above adverse effects can be found in our property easily. We disagree MOE says it’s already proved their operation no adverse effect.
您想象也能知道一个露天沥青厂在旁边能不又脏又吵吗？
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
