- 主题发起人 小小喇叭
- 发布时间 2017-05-29
给你们看看这个案子：
Ingram Asphalt Inc. rents 103 Ingram Drive, Toronto and started operation there at end of 1999 or early of 2000. In 1999, surrounding properties were already here for many years, include the property I live in as well as the long-term care facility (senior home) at 1 Northwestern Avenue. The Ingram Asphalt Inc. site is adjacent to our property, and its distance to the senior home is only 250m, the senior home is in the municipal zoned residential area. This is unique in Ontario, an asphalt plant adjacent to another property, especially since it was set here in 1999/2000 while Ontario already had in place the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and MOECC Guideline D-6 COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND SENSITIVE LAND USES (Guideline D-6).
The Ontario Environmental Protection Act was published in 1990. Section 14 prohibits the discharge of a contaminant into natural environment if the discharge causes or may cause any adverse effect. Ingram Asphalt Inc. is so close to the surrounding properties, especially the property I live in. It is an outdoor operation with machines and material piles just beside the property I live in and, in my opinion, its discharges certainly cause adverse effects to surrounding people. The community has never stopped complaining, and Ontario Court also fined Ingram Asphalt Inc. for its dust emissions having affected its neighbors and the community.
MOECC Guideline D-6 was published in 1995, it clearly said: Class III industrial facility minimum separation distance from the sensitive land uses is 300m, and residential is 24 hours sensitive land use. The senior home is only 250m away from Ingram Asphalt Inc. site, also the property I live in and other surrounding properties, according to North York zoning bylaw No. 7625, M3 zoning can be residential use for property caretakers which I am employed as. It is clearly incorrect to allow Ingram Asphalt Inc. operate on this site.
In 1999, when Ingram Asphalt Inc. rented their site, public consultation was neglected, the neighbors and community did not know an asphalt plant would be manufacturing here. The community and public members did not get a chance to appeal the MOECC permitted this asphalt plant to operate here.
According to North York zoning bylaw No. 7625, the asphalt plant is not a permitted use for M3 zoning. City staff said “it is deemed to be” one zoning permitted use, so it can be here, but the community has never agreed nor had the chance to appeal. In 2013 City changed Ingram Asphalt Inc. site zoning to EH zoning, but the property I live in and other neighborhood properties still must abide by the North York Zoning bylaw No. 7625. The community appealed City to OMB (PL130592, case 84). Currently we are still waiting for a hearing date.
The community has had many meetings about this asphalt plant affecting surrounding properties and community. We also communicated with MOECC by emails and phone calls also personal. We spent lots of time and energy and hoped to resolve the problem by working together with MOECC and City. Unfortunately the problem has not been resolved as of this date.
MOECC had a monitor on our roof, but they took it away, and never shared the data with us. Although we requested many times to put monitor back, MOECC refused and instead depended on inspector visits to the site.
I do not agree with MOECC that Ingram Asphalt Inc. operation is compliance with EPA. The situation MOECC officers did not see does not mean it did not happened. In fact, its operation always affects us, since they cannot control the fume, dust, smell, noise and vibration only within their site, not to come onto us. Our customers include seniors and kids, who come for tile shop, car dealer, candy store, restaurant, music club. It is not right people in the property I live on have to stay in the same environment as asphalt plant, suffering fume, dust, noise, vibration and smell pollution
Ingram Asphalt Inc. rents 103 Ingram Drive, Toronto and started operation there at end of 1999 or early of 2000. In 1999, surrounding properties were already here for many years, include the property I live in as well as the long-term care facility (senior home) at 1 Northwestern Avenue. The Ingram Asphalt Inc. site is adjacent to our property, and its distance to the senior home is only 250m, the senior home is in the municipal zoned residential area. This is unique in Ontario, an asphalt plant adjacent to another property, especially since it was set here in 1999/2000 while Ontario already had in place the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and MOECC Guideline D-6 COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND SENSITIVE LAND USES (Guideline D-6).
The Ontario Environmental Protection Act was published in 1990. Section 14 prohibits the discharge of a contaminant into natural environment if the discharge causes or may cause any adverse effect. Ingram Asphalt Inc. is so close to the surrounding properties, especially the property I live in. It is an outdoor operation with machines and material piles just beside the property I live in and, in my opinion, its discharges certainly cause adverse effects to surrounding people. The community has never stopped complaining, and Ontario Court also fined Ingram Asphalt Inc. for its dust emissions having affected its neighbors and the community.
MOECC Guideline D-6 was published in 1995, it clearly said: Class III industrial facility minimum separation distance from the sensitive land uses is 300m, and residential is 24 hours sensitive land use. The senior home is only 250m away from Ingram Asphalt Inc. site, also the property I live in and other surrounding properties, according to North York zoning bylaw No. 7625, M3 zoning can be residential use for property caretakers which I am employed as. It is clearly incorrect to allow Ingram Asphalt Inc. operate on this site.
In 1999, when Ingram Asphalt Inc. rented their site, public consultation was neglected, the neighbors and community did not know an asphalt plant would be manufacturing here. The community and public members did not get a chance to appeal the MOECC permitted this asphalt plant to operate here.
According to North York zoning bylaw No. 7625, the asphalt plant is not a permitted use for M3 zoning. City staff said “it is deemed to be” one zoning permitted use, so it can be here, but the community has never agreed nor had the chance to appeal. In 2013 City changed Ingram Asphalt Inc. site zoning to EH zoning, but the property I live in and other neighborhood properties still must abide by the North York Zoning bylaw No. 7625. The community appealed City to OMB (PL130592, case 84). Currently we are still waiting for a hearing date.
The community has had many meetings about this asphalt plant affecting surrounding properties and community. We also communicated with MOECC by emails and phone calls also personal. We spent lots of time and energy and hoped to resolve the problem by working together with MOECC and City. Unfortunately the problem has not been resolved as of this date.
MOECC had a monitor on our roof, but they took it away, and never shared the data with us. Although we requested many times to put monitor back, MOECC refused and instead depended on inspector visits to the site.
I do not agree with MOECC that Ingram Asphalt Inc. operation is compliance with EPA. The situation MOECC officers did not see does not mean it did not happened. In fact, its operation always affects us, since they cannot control the fume, dust, smell, noise and vibration only within their site, not to come onto us. Our customers include seniors and kids, who come for tile shop, car dealer, candy store, restaurant, music club. It is not right people in the property I live on have to stay in the same environment as asphalt plant, suffering fume, dust, noise, vibration and smell pollution
最后编辑: 2017-05-30
这个事情非常明显的是从一开始就违反省市的法规，但是可惜当时的群众不得要领，错过了申诉的机会，很糟糕地拖到现在。结果就是虽然人人明白是怎么回事，可是一直不能解决。
和政府反映，被顶回来，再反映，再顶回来，拉锯战十多年，到了2013年市政府改了zoning，2016年环保局再发新的许可证，如果没有人反对，这个非法的沥青厂就将被合法化，反而周边的土地使用变成了很尴尬的，既不是重工业但还和重工业在一起，而且现在被吊着的临终关怀中心和一个养老院将不能在这里了。
社区上诉了zoning的事情，现在也吊着，估计就是在等这个环保局的许可证板上钉钉了，zoning 的事情也会把社区的上诉驳回。所以我们这里不能退。没有办法，背水一战。为我们加油吧，在这个民主法治的国家，公众需要赢这一回。
我是最合适的人选之一，因为我在沥青厂隔壁，而且几乎在这里每天24小时。我接触的租户，访客，还有邻居谈这个事情的也最多，我甚至在社区中心参加联邦选举时都遇到许多民众和他们谈论这个事情。如果另外有人愿意出头，那我就不去了，我毕竟不是英语为母语的人。
市政府，确切地说是市议会去年夏天的决定， 也在继续就土地征用在工作，这个拖了快一年的事情希望能尽快开始征地的程序。
和政府反映，被顶回来，再反映，再顶回来，拉锯战十多年，到了2013年市政府改了zoning，2016年环保局再发新的许可证，如果没有人反对，这个非法的沥青厂就将被合法化，反而周边的土地使用变成了很尴尬的，既不是重工业但还和重工业在一起，而且现在被吊着的临终关怀中心和一个养老院将不能在这里了。
社区上诉了zoning的事情，现在也吊着，估计就是在等这个环保局的许可证板上钉钉了，zoning 的事情也会把社区的上诉驳回。所以我们这里不能退。没有办法，背水一战。为我们加油吧，在这个民主法治的国家，公众需要赢这一回。
我是最合适的人选之一，因为我在沥青厂隔壁，而且几乎在这里每天24小时。我接触的租户，访客，还有邻居谈这个事情的也最多，我甚至在社区中心参加联邦选举时都遇到许多民众和他们谈论这个事情。如果另外有人愿意出头，那我就不去了，我毕竟不是英语为母语的人。
市政府，确切地说是市议会去年夏天的决定， 也在继续就土地征用在工作，这个拖了快一年的事情希望能尽快开始征地的程序。
最后编辑: 2017-05-30
免费翻译， 我觉得没戏，
民事纠纷， 属于奢侈项目， 有钱人玩玩，
试想一下， 多伦多说外语的， 有一百八十多种， 上法庭都给免费翻译， 法院的成本多大？
民事纠纷， 属于奢侈项目， 有钱人玩玩，
试想一下， 多伦多说外语的， 有一百八十多种， 上法庭都给免费翻译， 法院的成本多大？
这个问题又有点复杂了，这个老人院的业主好像是那个面包房，那个面包房据说业主也是黑手党。我当时去的时候，老人院的管理人员的年轻姑娘想听我说，被一个年纪大点的叫走，然后那个年纪大点的跟我说他们不参与。我去隔壁的食杂店，也卖面包的，那个人也说不参与。后来邻居说那个业主一家全是黑手党，其中一个儿子被枪杀在停车场，当着许多人的面。
这个地区除了沥青厂那个业主，这个食杂店的业主，还有一块地现在空着的也是黑手党人所有。总之我当初并不知道，所以糊里糊涂地拿着请愿书挨家走了一遍。不过这个沥青厂的一伙和面包房的一伙不是同一组人，他们黑手党内部也不是没有矛盾的。
最后编辑: 2017-05-30
法院的申请费，律师什么的确实有免费的，但是收入很低的才满足条件，所以大多数人是不能免的。这个就变成了一个阻碍，很多人即使不同意 Tribunal，但因为时间，精力，费用而选择了不去 court。
但是放弃争论的后果却不仅影响自己，因为那个 case law ， 又会影响后来人。我们在 Tribunal 的时候，决定里面就有这样的话，说过去的案子怎么判了之后，没有人去 court，说明这样判可以，拿来用在我们的案子上。所以我们为自己为后来人都必须去 court 走一遭。但是有律师提醒了，输了的话，对方可以要求我赔他们的费用，对方都有律师的，律师费不会便宜。Tribunal 好像也觉得我们不会选择去 court，因为不合算。总的感觉是法律好像有改进的必要，否则因为害怕不做声，再因为 case law，岂不是再没了后来人？谁也不敢和环保局说不。
最后编辑: 2017-05-30
