滑铁卢华西村民居改建清真寺已暂停并进入司法复核阶段,恳请支持居民维权
原创
2017-09-26 WWCA 海外留学联盟
最近，滑铁卢华西村居民因对本地民居改建清真寺的市政by-law持有异议，已经向OMB提出司法复核，正在聘请律师与专业规划人员进入积极的准备阶段。
附近居民因此成立了非盈利组织WWCA (Waterloo West Community Association) 并积极踊跃捐款应对官司花费。目前正式收到邻近居民各族裔的捐款共计69笔，超过$14,000元。外加以前捐款的余额近$5000，能用于OMB司法诉讼的费用共计$19,000。
居民向独立的OMB司法机构提出申诉，是安省改建审批中的重要步骤，以确保市议会做出改建决议的公正性和合法性。普通居民很少有机会经历过这样的司法诉讼，必须有资深OMB专职律师和专业人员的协助，才能顺利完成这个司法诉讼。
Refer: The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) is an independent administrative board, operated as an adjudicative tribunal, in the province of Ontario, Canada. It hears applications and appeals on municipal and planning disputes, as well as other matters specified in provincial legislation.
OMB的最终裁判结果，没有任何人与组织，能给出具体的输赢判断。
目前，此改项目已经暂停。
OMB第一次法庭听证的安排，比普通OMB案例已推迟了2，3个月，可能要到明年1月份。这样的官司，任何一的完整科学数据报告。也就是说，我们准备4万元的法律应诉费用，改建方需要至少50来万的应诉费用。
还有，不仅仅是钱的问题。
有些科学数据的准备，改建方是无法取得，无法完成的。有些显而易见的矛盾是无法解决的，比如：离繁忙的红绿灯路口只有几百米，交通压力的增加过大，过路行人极不安全；大型活动中心噪音倍增，对面小区居民仅仅一条马路相隔，居民的安静生活环境严重被干扰；大型活动中心没有市政的废水处理系统，使用小型化粪池对地下水源的污染无法估计。
改建申请的批准，在附近居民看来，确实有诸多疑点, 既不合理也不合市政程序，侵害了附近居民的合法权益。
加拿大是法制国家, 无论政党如何更替, 各级政府都以严格遵守联邦,省里,市里的法律法规条例而自律, 民众更以生活在这样的法治国度而自豪.
附近居民自发成立组织, 集资捐款,积极维权, 并得到数位资深的多伦多OMB律师，土地规划师，建筑师等专业人士的指导和协助, 这是维权的第一步.
第二步, 需要尽快完成资金的募集，才有可能顺利完成后面的司法程序，也才有机会让市政以外的独立司法机构，来审核评估市政做出的这个决议，才有可能让市议会在今后的同样案例里，尊守法规尊重公众的权益.
总有些故事特别感人。这些故事的主人公也未必住在改建民居附近。
有位Sherry女士一直关心这个改建，自己动员家人朋友几次捐款并且数额很大。有位Kitchener女士说，“我对改建没有太多感觉，毕竟我不住在那里，但是我对大家这样的专业维权作法特别欣赏。如果哪一天我的小区有类似的事情，我一样需要大家的帮助。我捐“。前几日滑铁卢地区射击运动俱乐部举办活动，一位叶先生主动给大家购买了两天的午餐，呼吁大家为此捐款，两天获得不菲的款项。滑铁卢述谦学堂也积极捐款。还有组织活动的很多义工们，养生堂老板主动腾出自己的办公室做捐款场地。
------------------------------------------------------------------------
捐款目标：$3.5万-$5 万
捐款方式如下：
1. TD Bank
Account Name：Waterloo West Community Association
Account Number: 3659 5222299
（TD的客户可以在TD的柜台直接转账。非TD的客户，可以在TD柜台用现金或支票存入WWCA帐户. 在TD柜台转账后，请email告知存款日期及款额，以便开给您收据。邮件地址：fund510objection@gmail.com”)
2. E-transfer
fund510objection@gmail.com
（网上银行直接通过该邮件转账）
详细的OMB申诉理由见英文部分.
Please find in the attached our appeal reasons to OMB:
Phase II: The rezoning of the land from Agricultural to Institutional represents an inappropriate use of the subject land which is designated Low-Density Residential in the Official Plan. This is particularly true as the Applicant has expressed intentions to construct a new, larger spiritual building on the lands in the future. The matter of converting a single-detached house into a place of worship is premature before the whole project is evaluated for traffic, noise, parking, environmental concerns a functional servicing study, an urban design brief and site plan, sustainability etc. The City of Waterloo should not approve to rezone part of the lot without knowing what the rest of the lot will look like in terms of the Official Plan, Zoning for the whole site, Site Plan provisions etc.
The use of a Holding (“H”) provision with respect to the future proposal has the effect of approving a future place of worship while taking away the rights of concerned residents to voice their concerns or appeal it. A Holding (“H”) provision that effectively approves a larger future development (even though removal is subject to the completion of additional technical studies) is premature, inappropriate and does not represent good planning. Issues that are relevant to the suitability of the proposed zoning and that deal with potential impacts to others should not be left to a holding provision.
– Traffic concerns with respect to Erbsville Road;
– Parking concerns – lack of parking to accommodate proposed use;
– Noise concerns associated with special events and celebrations;
– Adequacy of services for proposed use;
– Wrong location;
– Decrease of Property Value; and
– Rezoning Trend Setting.
Phase I: The City of Waterloo permitted the existing structures to be used for spiritual uses before updated specifics whether they are of sufficient size or whether they conform to the building code for its proposed uses. This practice raised concerns in terms of health and safety of the uses proposed and the potential occupants, including, but not limited to the following aspects, emergency and fire plan, the building capacity, stormwater management, site access, sidewalk safety & turning vehicles issues, parking issue, and negative environmental impacts from the proposed septic tank.
近期又有一个case，连councilor Wilkinson自己都觉得上诉了也没用
