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....
這裏的問題是我們從未看見過他們的營業執照，全是市政府和環境部在那說來說去，也沒個字據。但這件事很可疑，至今沒人明確回答他們到底有嗎？哪兒來的？
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?
你需要提供具體的數據,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)
這是很大的問題。隻有我在一年多的時間裏電話賬單上記錄半夜，淩晨打電話到市政府和環境部投訴，有兩次警察到現場，那是去年的事，警察聽到和看到機器轟鳴的可怕景象。但他們說這樣已經好幾年了，市政府應該管，不關警察的事。
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...
這也是個問題，環境部的人看見，也取樣，但不承認是可以證明來自瀝青廠。
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...
這個有市政府的Zoning by-law，有這個條款，另外瀝青廠機器和儲存在室外，大家看得見。
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...
我們複印了環境部的許可證，上麵有列明什麽東西他們申請了，批準了，可以用。他們後來又申請添加，但還沒批，他們使用，我們和環境部的人都知道。環境部不回答這個問題。
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...
我們也複印了他們的申請資料，使去環境部看的，公眾可以看，除了瀝青廠到居民區的距離造假（他們說500米，實際250米），他們還說他們的管理汙染的手段包括：在不用的儲存堆上蓋毛氈，從來沒有；在門前豎牌放上電話號碼，以便公眾投訴，如果有汙染，從來沒有，連個單位名稱都不告訴，很多人告了多年狀，包括市議員，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? 這個法律上有寫明，就是和工業不直接有關的用地，比如學校，商場等等，居民是24小時全天候的sensitive land use，現在環境部和市政府采取隻承認居民區的辦法，將我們最近的幾個投訴人減到最少，實際上法律對不利影響的定義是對全體人民，沒有分別對待。
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...
環境部的指南說重工業和非工業用地最小間隔300米，那個老人院和瀝青廠的距離是我用電子信件問市政府我們地區規劃員得來的。我的鄰居也量出一樣的結果250米，小於300米，更不是他們說的500米。有目的地欺騙，能錯的如此離譜嗎？
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.
您想象也能知道一個露天瀝青廠在旁邊能不又髒又吵嗎？
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....
這裏的問題是我們從未看見過他們的營業執照，全是市政府和環境部在那說來說去，也沒個字據。但這件事很可疑，至今沒人明確回答他們到底有嗎？哪兒來的？
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?
你需要提供具體的數據,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)
這是很大的問題。隻有我在一年多的時間裏電話賬單上記錄半夜，淩晨打電話到市政府和環境部投訴，有兩次警察到現場，那是去年的事，警察聽到和看到機器轟鳴的可怕景象。但他們說這樣已經好幾年了，市政府應該管，不關警察的事。
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...
這也是個問題，環境部的人看見，也取樣，但不承認是可以證明來自瀝青廠。
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...
這個有市政府的Zoning by-law，有這個條款，另外瀝青廠機器和儲存在室外，大家看得見。
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...
我們複印了環境部的許可證，上麵有列明什麽東西他們申請了，批準了，可以用。他們後來又申請添加，但還沒批，他們使用，我們和環境部的人都知道。環境部不回答這個問題。
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...
我們也複印了他們的申請資料，使去環境部看的，公眾可以看，除了瀝青廠到居民區的距離造假（他們說500米，實際250米），他們還說他們的管理汙染的手段包括：在不用的儲存堆上蓋毛氈，從來沒有；在門前豎牌放上電話號碼，以便公眾投訴，如果有汙染，從來沒有，連個單位名稱都不告訴，很多人告了多年狀，包括市議員，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? 這個法律上有寫明，就是和工業不直接有關的用地，比如學校，商場等等，居民是24小時全天候的sensitive land use，現在環境部和市政府采取隻承認居民區的辦法，將我們最近的幾個投訴人減到最少，實際上法律對不利影響的定義是對全體人民，沒有分別對待。
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...
環境部的指南說重工業和非工業用地最小間隔300米，那個老人院和瀝青廠的距離是我用電子信件問市政府我們地區規劃員得來的。我的鄰居也量出一樣的結果250米，小於300米，更不是他們說的500米。有目的地欺騙，能錯的如此離譜嗎？
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.
您想象也能知道一個露天瀝青廠在旁邊能不又髒又吵嗎？
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
