35MoM_SEAC.pdf

8/14/2019 35MoM_SEAC.pdf

1/27

1

Minutes of the 35thmeeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)held on 18thOctober 2010

Present1. Shri PMA Hakeem - Chairman

2. Shri GK Deshpande - Member3. Dr. Kishore Bhoir - Member4. Dr. SB Chaphekar - Member5. Dr. SK Padole - Member6. Dr. TG More - Member7. Shri DJ Bharati - Secretary

Compliance cases

Item No.1(Originally considered in the 29thmeeting held in June 2010 and again in the30thmeeting)

Project proponent: M/s Nikunj Developers (holding power of attorney of M/s VideoconProperties Ltd.)

Consultant:M/s Aditya Environmental Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Name of the project and location: Proposed Veena Saaz at Kandivali, Mumbai -Classified under 8(a) Category B2.

Brief details of the project (as per the proposal):

Plot area: 17,304 sq.m. Gross construction area (without TDR): 19,993 sq.m. (of which14,831 sq.m under FSI). Gross construction area with TDR: 28,247 sq.m. (of which17,086 sq.m under FSI). Break up of additional gross construction area: Building no.5:15,939 sq.m. Building no. 6: 7,108 sq.m. and Parking Building: 4,439 sq.m. Parkingrequired as per MCGM norms: 186. Total parking proposed: 271.

Decision: The Committee had carried out a visit to the plot on 30thJune, 2010. Theentire plot belonged to M/s Videocon Properties Ltd. who constructed towers A and B(each of 24 floors) earlier. These towers, each with about 90 flats, are occupied sincelast 3-4 years and a society of residents exists on each tower. M/s Nikunj Developers, as

PA holder of M/s Videocon Properties Ltd., constructed two additional towers nos. 5 and6. Building no. 5 (stilt + 15 floors) is nearly complete and bulding no. 6 (stilt + 9 floors) isalso nearing completion. M/s Nikunj Developers, as PA holder of M/s VideoconProperties Ltd., proposed construction of a separate building with four floors for parkingof vehicles and a club with a swimming pool. Based on the observations during the sitevisit and other relevant issues, the project proponent was requested to comply withcertain requirements.


2/27

2

Before the project proponent made presentation on the compliance, a representationwas received from M/s Ravi Mittal & Associates on behalf of the petitioner in writ petitionno. 1486 of 2009. The points made in the representation were kept in view whileassessing the compliance reported by the project proponent.

The project proponent explained the compliance done in respect of the points raised in

the last meeting. The main points made by them are: (i) two pending court cases(including writ petition no. 1486 of 2009) have been either dismissed or withdrawn. (ii) Alay out plan showing the existing and proposed buildings along with amenities and RGarea (which comes to 25% of the plot area) was submitted. RG area will be kept open asper provisions of DC rules and will not be paved. (iii) A plan indicating parkingarrangement for 351 parking spaces (consisting of 69 in stilt, 180 in open area and 102in the parking building) was submitted. It was also indicated that total number of parkingspaces for buildings 1 and 2 would be 158 (26 existing and 132 open parking). (iii) STPshall be provided with recycling facility to take care of the flushing and gardening for thecomplex. (iv) Consents from all members of buildings A and B were obtained for theexpansion of the project and copies furnished. (iv) A diesel generator set was alreadyprovided for building no. 2 (called tower B) and one has just been procured for building

no. 1 (tower A). (v) It was indicated in the meeting that facilities like swimming pool, clubhouse, childrens play house and other amenities as required under municipalregulations would be provided to occupants of all buildings including buildings nos. 1 and2. (vi) A reverse osmosis plant with capacity of 1000 litres per hour will be installed at thesite. (vii) On completion of the buildings, all amenities including swimming pool andclubhouse will be handed over to the apex committee of the societies of the fourbuildings. All ownership/management rights will be transferred to the apex committee.(viii) In respect of the glass parapets provided as a decorative feature, preventivemeasures (to prevent accidents) will be taken by providing grill.

It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearancesubject to the project proponent complying with the following:

(i) The drawings submitted are not to scale. Fresh drawings to scale may besubmitted.

(ii) Regarding the parking plan submitted, some of the parking spaces are so closeto the buildings and would obstruct fire tender movement and operations. These need tobe relocated. As also the parking spaces in the north west corner need to be relocatedto allow unobstructed movement of cars. A revised parking plan incorporating thesechanges and showing the parking spaces of each of the buildings and for visitors inseparate colours may be submitted.

(iii) Internal roads may be shown in a map in distinct colours with dimensions, side

gutters, tree plantations etc.

(iv) The project proponent should give an undertaking that till the parking building isapproved and completed fully, no possession will be given to occupy any constructionbeyond 9th floor in building no. 6, as it was indicated by the project proponent that theparking area in that buildng is not more than that required by the future occupants of thefloors above 9thfloor.


3/27

3

(v) One STP will be provided for the buildings nos. 1 and 2 and a separate STP forthe other two buildings. The excess treated effluent from the STPs (after meeting therequirements for flushing in all the buildings and gardening) will be fully utilized forirrigating the lawns and other green areas of the adjoining Joggers park of MCGM, atleast till the sewer line is extended to the area covering the plot. The concurrence ofMCGM for such use may be obtained and copy furnished.

(vi) EMP may also include provision of a laboratory with trained manpower andequipment for day to day monitoring of the quality of water and effluent.

Item No.2 (Originally considered in the 17th meeting held in October 2009 andrecommended for grant of prior EC; subsequently referred back by SEIAA andconsidered by the Committee in the 32ndmeeting).

Project proponent: M/s Raj EnterprisesIName of the project and location: Residential project at village Bolinj, Taluka Vasai,

District Thane - Classified under 8(a) Category B2.


Total plot area: 3.54 hectare. Proposed built-up area: 25,720 sq. m. No. of buildings: 11(3 buildings with 7 floors; 6 buildings with 6 floors, 1 building with 3 floors and 1 buildingwith one floor, apart from ground floor in all cases). Residential units: 628. Commercialunits: 136. Parking: 82 cars and 400 two wheelers.

Decision: The proposal was initially recommend for grant of prior environmentalclearance subject to the condition that the project proponent should furnish a mapindicating the location of the sewer line of CIDCO near the plot and also the consent of

CIDCO to accept treated effluent from the project in their sewer (as there was no othersewer line in the area). When the matter was considered by SEIAA in its 23rdmeeting,the project proponent stated that zero discharge was not possible as the CIDCO sewerline was not available as the project proponent had earlier proposed. SEIAA thendecided to refer back the case to SEAC to reappraise the project.

In the 32ndmeeting, the project proponent stated that they would enter into agreementswith farmers for use of the treated effluent. The Committee did not find this acceptable;if farmers later do not accept the treated effluent, particularly during monsoon, theproject proponent would have to discharge the treated effluent to water bodies. Afterdiscussion, the project proponent agreed to recast their proposal restricting it to the flatsalready constructed, keeping about 2-3 hectares of land vacant for horticulture and

greening so that excess treated effluent can be fully used there. They will also constructtwo interconnected ponds with capacity equal to one months surplus treated effluent.They were advised to approach the Committee when the recast proposal was ready.

In todays meeting the project proponent confirmed seeking EC for the existing sevenbuildings covering 405 flats with a plinth area of 4,107 sq.m. As a result, 2.71 hectaresof land will become available for gardening, where the surplus treated water can be usedfor irrigation. The daily quantity of excess treated effluent would be 112.4 cu.m. whichwill suffice to irrigate 2.24 hectares. The capacity of the two ponds will be 3,375 cu.m.


4/27

4

It was decided to recommend the revised proposal (phase I in respect of existing sevenbuildings with 405 flats) for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to thefollowing:

(i) The project proponent should furnish forms I and Ia and revised drawings in

respect of phase I.

(ii) The surplus treated water in the ponds should be sufficiently aerated.

(iii) Adequate care should be taken to ensure that there is no possibility for stormwater to get mixed up with the treated effluent stored in ponds.

(iv) The project proponent should give an undertaking that no effluent will bedischarged from the project area into any Nala or other water bodies.

Item No.3 (Originally considered in the 31st meeting held in July 2009 and againconsidered in the 32ndmeeting).

Project proponent: M/s Adhiraj Construction Pvt Ltd.

Consultant :M/s Fine Envirotech Engineers Pvt Ltd., Mahim, Mumbai.

Name of the project and location: Residential Township Project Adhiraj Upscale atRohinjan, Near Panvel, District Raigad - Classified under 8(b) Category B1.


Total plot area: 1,14,700 sq.m. Net plot area: 1,09,309 sq.m. FSI built up area: 4,34,038sq.m. (3,01,492 sq.m. for sale housing + 1,09,320 sq.m for rental housing + 23,226 forcommercial). Total non-FSI area: 3,37,622 sq.m. (including 2,01,862 sq.m for parking).No. of buildings for sale: 25 buildings (19 with 45 floors, 2 with 40 floors, 2 with 30 floorsand 2 with 15 floors). No. of sale units: 4,612; rental units: 5,466. Total parking spacesproposed: 3,750. Total green cover area: 37,351 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 1,149.

Decision: In the first meeting it was found that the proposal involved construction ofthree podia of huge area (over 5 hectares at each level), which would not be desirablefrom the environmental point of view. The project proponent was then requested torecast the project by significantly reducing the area under podium and then approach the

committee for further consideration of their proposal. In the 32nd

meeting the projectproponent expressed inability to accept the suggestion of the SEAC to reduce thenumber and area of the podia and tried to justify the podia in preference to basements.The Committee noted that it had not specifically suggested taking up of two basementsand there are other alternatives like ground parking which could be considered. It waspointed out that the DC rules also permitted only one small podium and not large multi-tired podia. The proponent was once again given an opportunity to recast the proposal.


5/27


6/27

6

Item No.5(Originally considered in the 30thmeeting held in July 2010).

Project proponent:M/s DB Group DB Realty Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd.

Name of the project and location: Construction of residential building Orchid EnclaveIII Rehabilitation Building and MCGM Parking Lot on plot bearing CS No. 241, 242and 243 of Tardeo Division, D Ward, Mumbai - Classified under 8(b) Category B1.


Plot area: 25,648 sq.m. Proposed FSI area: 37,368 sq.m. Non-FSI area: 62,165 sq.m.MGM parking lot area: 59,875 sq.m. Total built up area: 1,61,405 sq.m. MCGM parkinglot: 3B+G+1 to 7 (part) podium; Rehabilitation portion: 7 (part) to 8 podium + S + 34floors with 120 tenements. Sale portion: 9 to 13 podium + S + 72 floors with 189

tenements. Area for landscape development: 3,847 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted:190. No. of parking spaces to be provided in MCGM parking lot: 836 (210 LCVs plus626 LMVs). Captive parking spaces to be provided in sale portion: 514. Parking areaper car: 37.54 sq.m. Captive parking spaces to be provided in rehabilitation portion:114. Parking area per car: 34.35 sq.m.

Decision: In the last meeting, it was observed that the proposal involved construction ofover 1,61,405 sq.m on a part of the plot of effective area slightly over 6,000 sq.m. Thismeant construction of 25 to 26 times of the plot size and the project proponent wasrequested to revise the proposal to reduce the total construction substantially. Whiledoing so, they were also requested to furnish the actual calculation of additional FSIavailable on account of providing municipal parking and the resulting cap on FSI in

accordance with the provisions of the annexure to the GR relating to the MunicipalParking Scheme, based on the location of the plot.

In their response, the project proponent pointed out that comparison of the constructionarea with only a portion of the plot on which construction is now proposed would give askewed picture. The total area of the plot is 25,648 sq.m. The foot print of the existingfour residential buildings is 1,273 sq.m, that of existing commercial & residential buildingis 8,953 sq.m., while that of the proposed Orchid Enclave III is 6,064 sq.m., giving aground coverage of 63.51%. Further, because of physical limitations on the plot they areable to construct 59,875 sq.m. only for MCGM parking and as a result they are able toconsume only 1.167 as against the balance permissible FSI of 1.5. The basis ofcalculation of additional FSI has been furnished. In a letter given on 20thOctober, 2010,

the project proponent has indicated that after review they have decided to reduce onepodium out of the parking area proposed for the sale and rehabilitation portion (nowthere will be 12 podiums instead of 13 proposed earlier; podiums 1 to 7(p) will be usedfor municipal parking and 7(p) to 12 for parking of sale and rehabilitation parking). Withthis, per car parking area for sale and rehabilitation portion will come to 30.72 sq.m. As aresult of this change, the total construction area will come down from 1,61,405 sq.m. to1,55,960 sq.m. The total construction area of existing five residential buildings and onecommercial building is 1,17,228 sq.m. Thus the total construction on the whole plot ofarea 25,648 sq.m. will be 2,73,188 sq.m.. (10.65 times the plot area).


7/27

7

It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearancesubject to the project proponent furnishing revised drawings and area statementsincorporating the changes indicated above.

Item No.6 (Originally considered in the 22nd meeting held in January 2010 andrecommended for rejection in the 27thmeeting; later referred back by SEIAA).

Project proponent: Chalama Infraproperties Pvt Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd. Thane (W).

Name of the project and location: Residential cum Commercial project at VillageSheel, Taluka Thane, District Thane - Classified under 8(b) Category B1.


Plot area: 80,910 sq.m. Built up area: 1,55,756 sq.m. (1,53,726 sq.m under residentialand 2,030 sq.m under commercial). No. of buildings: 26 (ST + 7 to 22 floors). No. ofresidential flats: 2,211. No. of shops: 40.

Decision:In the first meeting the project proponent was requested to comply with points

relating to (i) confirmation from TMC regarding status of sewer line in the area; (ii)confirmation from TMC regarding availability of water for the project; (iii) lay out of STP;and (iv) detailed FSI statement. While compliance was done in respect of the points (ii)to (iv), the reply given in respect of the point no. (i) was not satisfactory. The Committeeconsidered the matter and came to the conclusion that it would not be possible torecommend the proposal involving construction of over 2,200 flats, when there is no

certainty regarding TMC sewer line being constructed in the area. It was, therefore,decided to recommend rejection of the proposal for grant of prior environmentalclearance. It was indicated that the case could be reopened after extension of the TMCsewer line to the site of the project was sanctioned by TMC and the work on it started.

The matter was considered by the SEIAA in its 28thmeeting. The Authority agreed withthe decision of this Committee that proper sewer line should be ensured in the location.Taking into account the representation of the project proponent, the Authority decided torefer the case back to this Committee with request to invite TMC officers for the meetingto obtain a time bound programme for the sewer line.

The project proponent attended the meeting with an official (Deputy Engineer) of TMC.

The official gave the impression that the work for laying the sewer line covering theproject area was likely to be awarded by December 2010. The project proponent andthe TMC official were requested to send a confirmatory letter from TMC indicating a firmdate for the completion of the project. The letter received from the City Engineer, TMCgives a picture different from that indicated by the TMC official in the meeting. The letterhas indicated that they have appointed a consultant for preparation of DPR for theextension of the sewer line covering the project area, that the DPR will be ready in ayears time and that the physical work will be taken up thereafter.


8/27

8

As indicated earlier, it would not be advisable to approve construction of over 2200 flats,when the DPR for the sewerage project itself will be completed only after a year andtherefore it is not possible now to obtain a time bound programme for the completion ofthe project. Even assuming that the housing project in question will take some time toget completed, there is no certainty that the sewer line will be in place before thisconstruction is over. The Committee, therefore, decided that it would not be proper to

recommend EC for the whole project at this stage. If the project proponent is willing totake up a part of the project (say, not exceeding about 700 flats) and is able to leaveabout 4 to 5 hectares of the plot vacant (so that it can be used for plantation andhorticulture to consume the excess treated effluent, should that become necessary),grant of EC for that portion could be considered at this stage. EC for the remainingportion can be considered, as and when work on the sewerage project is taken up. Ifthis suggestion is acceptable to the project proponent, he may approach the Committeewith a recast proposal for phase I as indicated above.

Item No.7 (Originally considered in the 21st meeting held in January 2010).

Project proponent: Raghuleela Leasing & Real Estates Pvt Ltd.

Name of the project and location: Construction of commercial/office building projectThe Capital at BKC, Bandra, Mumbai.


Plot area: 7,107 sq.m. Total built-up area: 1,03,379 sq.m. Parking to be provided: 937

Decision: In this case, the project proponent had earlier obtained EC for a built up areaof 55,481sq.m. Later they approached the Committee seeking fresh environmental

clearance stating that MMRDA has sanctioned additional FSI (based on global FSI) andas a result the total construction would go up to 1,03,379 sq.m. It was then indicated tothe project proponent that the Committee was not in a position to recommend theproposal which involved construction of about 15 times the plot size, as it would not bepossible to meet the minimum environmental requirements.

While doing so, the Committee separately took up with the Environment Department,Government of Maharashtra the general issue of Global FSI, under which MMRDA hasbeen sanctioning very high FSI for individual projects. In the above case, the total FSIsanctioned came to 11.80, with total construction area about 15 times the plot area. Itwas pointed out in the note that it would not just be possible to meet the variousenvironmental norms even at a highly reduced level. Such a project can add

considerable stain on various environmental parameters, like open areas, green area,parking, traffic etc. which are already under tremendous pressure. It was stated that inmany of the building projects, it was difficult to provide an open space of even onesquare metre per person, far below what is regarded as a desirable minimum. As per theabove proposal, the open space available for a population of 9400 is less than 1000sq.metre (just about 0.1 sq.m!). The argument that this was based on a global FSI wouldnot minimize the excess strain on a particular plot. The Department of Environment wasrequested to take up the matter with the Urban Development Department. So far, noreply has been received from the Environment Department.


9/27

9

The project proponent has again approached the Committee, since their case was notformally recommended for rejection. They are not willing to change the scope of theirproject in any manner. Since the Committee has not received any reply from theDepartment of Environment on the policy issue referred to above, the Committee is notin a position to take any action other than recommending the proposal for rejection of the

request for EC. Accordingly, the Committee decided to recommend the proposal forrejection.

It is still requested that the matter may be taken up with the Urban DevelopmentDepartment to either discontinue the scheme of global FSI or if at all it has to beretained, to provide a reasonable cap on the maximum FSI permissible for a plot and/ortotal construction which can be taken up as a multiple of the plot area.

Item No.8 (Originally considered in the 13th meeting held in July 2009).

Project proponent: Ramnath Developers Pvt Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Earthcare Labs Private Ltd., Nagpur.

Brief description of the project: Proposed mini-residential township project atRamnath City at Koradi, Nagpur - Classified under 8(a) Category B2.


Plot area: 8.05 hectares. Built up area: 60,739 sq.m, Proposed ground coverage:19.2%. Amenity space: 12,344 sq.m. Open space: 8,164 sq.m. No. of parking spacesproposed: 579. Green belt area: 20,930 sq.m.

Decision: It was found that since the area was outside the municipal limits, there wasno sewer line to which the excess treated effluent could be discharged. The projectproponent indicated that the project area would eventually be included in the municipalarea, though one cannot be certain as to how long it would take. It was indicated to theproject proponent that it would not be possible to consider the project in the presentform. If the project proponent is willing to take up phase I of the project covering a builtup area of around 25,000 sq.m. leaving at least 4 to 5 hectares of land vacant (so thatthe excess treated effluent could be utilized for taking up horticulture and other greeningwork on it), the proposal may be recast accordingly. Two or three interconnected andsufficiently aerated ponds with a holding capacity equal to the volume of surplus effluentfor a month will also have to be constructed.

Item No.9 (Originally considered in the 29thmeeting held in June 2010 and again in the33rdmeeting)

Project proponent: M/s DB Group Neelkamal Realtors & Builders Pvt Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd, Thane (W).


10/27

10

Name of the project and location: Proposed construction of residential buildingOrchid Park at RS Nimkar Marg, Shuklaji Street, Bachustwadi, Mumbai Central,Mumbai - classified under 8(a) category B2.


Plot area: 14,771 sq.m. Built up area (FSI) for sale building: 34,528 sq.m. Totalconstruction area for sale building (including non-FSI): 85,597 sq.m. No. of buildings:one (2B+G+2P+St+67) with 260 tenements. Built up area for rehabilitation building;24,441 sq.m. Total construction area for rehabilitation building (including non-FSI);39,175 sq.m. No. of buildings: one (2B+St+31 floors) with 692 tenements. Totalconstruction area for MCGM parking: 30,628 sq.m. No. of buildings: one (G+11 floors).Ground coverage: 41.4%. No. of parking spaces proposed to be provided: 324 for salebuilding; 108 for rehabilitation building and 350 for MCGM

Decision: This is a combined redevelopment of old existing building on the plot underDC rules 33(7) and MCGB public parking under DC rules 33(9). In both the last meetingsit was pointed out to the project proponent that the consent of at least 70% of the

occupants was required before the project under 33(7) is taken up and that Governmentapproval under 33(9) should be produced. It was made abundantly clear that unlessthere was compliance on these two issues, it would not be possible to proceed with theappraisal of the project. Despite giving two opportunities, the project proponent hascome back without any progress on these issues and so it was decided to recommendrejection of the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.

Item No.11 (Originally considered in the 12thmeeting held in May 2009).

Project proponent: MHADA, Mumbai

Consultant: M/s Fine Envirotech Engineers, Mumbai.

Name of the project and location: Mass Housing Project at Sion, Mumbai - Classifiedunder 8(a) Category B2.


Area of the plot (including buildings constructed from 2001 onwards): 1,10,338 sq.m. RGarea:15,490 sq.m. Total proposed area of construction: 1,26,080 sq.m. Transit camps:22 wings of G+4 type. MIG and HIG tenements: 46 wings of S+7 type. LIG tenements:20 wings G+7 type (Total 88 wings and 3313 tenements).

Decision: .The project proponent has generally complied with the various points raisedin the first meeting as well as after the site inspection on 2ndDecember 2009. It was,therefore, decided to recommend the proposal for grant of environmental clearance.However, as observed during the site inspection, all except five (out of the 88) buildingswere practically completed and many were occupied; even out of the five buildings, fourbuildings were under construction. The Department of Environment may, therefore,consider initiating appropriate action for taking up construction of the buildings withoutprior environmental clearance. The Department may also take up with MCGM the issueof grant of occupancy certificates for many completed buildings in the absence of EC.


11/27

11

Item No.12 (Originally considered and recommended for rejection in the 25thmeetingheld in March 2010; subsequently referred back to the Committee by SEIAA as decidedin their 28thmeeting).

Project proponent:M/s Dream Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Name of the project and location: Dreams Nivara Affordable Housing Scheme atKoregaon Mul, Taluka Haveli, District Pune - Classified under 8(a) Category B2.


Plot area: 1,05,450 sq.m. (64,350 sq.m in phase I and 41,100 sq.m. in phase II). Totalbuilt up area: 79,941 sq.m. (of which under FSI is 64,654 sq.m, consisting of 38,708sq.m in phase I and 25,946 sq.m in phase II). No. of buildings: 40. No. of flats: 1,808(1232 in phase I and 576 in phase II). No. of parking spaces proposed: 718 four-

wheelers, 449 two-wheelers and 449 cycles (of which 413, 258 and 258 respectively arein phase I). Green area: 28,352 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted:1,116.

Decision: In the 25thmeeting the case was recommended for rejection, as there was nosatisfactory proposal for utilization of the surplus treated water, since the project waslocated outside the municipal limits without any sewer line. The matter was consideredby SEIAA in its 28thmeeting. The Authority decided to refer back the proposal to thisCommittee based on the assurance of the project proponent to (i) provide STP; (ii)maintain zero discharge from the project and make necessary plantation to recycle thetreated water to full extent; and (iii) be ready to meet the expenses incurred forextending existing drainage line.

The proposals made by the project proponent in todays meeting were quite vague. Theproposal to put up STP was already there. The earlier decision to recommend decisionwas not based on the issue of putting up STP, but on the question of satisfactory meansof utilizing the excess effluent coming out of the STP after treatment. Despite theassurance made by the project proponent before the SEIAA for taking up necessaryplantation to ensure zero discharge, no concrete proposal has been made in this regard.The other assurance to meet the expenses to be incurred for extending existingdrainage line is not clear. The project site is quite a distance away from the municipallimits. If what the project proponents means is meeting the expenses connected withextending the drainage line of the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) to the project site,the relevant questions are: (i) Is PMC willing to accept the treated effluent from theproject in their sewer lines, even if the project proponent is willing to meet the cost of

extending the drainage line? (ii) What is the distance from the project site to the nearestsewer line of PMC and has the cost of extending the drainage line to this extent beenworked out and can the project proponent really afford it? (iii) If the drainage line is to beso extended, what about the concurrence of the landholders through whose land suchextended drainage line will pass? This option can, therefore, be considered by theCommittee, only if the project proponent can furnish satisfactory answers to thesequestions.


12/27

12

Alternatively, if the project proponent can scale down the first phase of the project toabout 400-500 tenements and if he is able to leave 5-6 hectares of land completelyvacant for taking up horticulture and other plantation and also to construct two or moreinterconnected and suitably aerated ponds with a capacity equal to the surplus treatedeffluent for about 30 days, the same can be considered. If the project proponent iswilling to examine this alternative, the proposal may be suitably recast and the

Committee may be approached.

Item No.12a (Originally considered in the 32ndmeeting held in August 2010).

Project proponent:M/s Housing & Area Development Board (MHADA)

Consultant:M/s Fine Environment Tech Engineers, Mahim, Mumbai.

Name of the project and location:Proposed redevelopment of transit camp with transitEWS & MIG type tenements at Kannnamwar Nagar, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai classified

under 8(a) Category B2.


Total plot area: 57,204 sq.m. for pocket I and 31,825 sq.m. for pocket II. Net plot area:30,079 sq.m. for pocket I and 24,627 sq.m. for pocket II. Built up area: 50,813 sq.m. forpocket I and 67,333 sq.m. for pocket II. No. of buildings in pocket I: 7 transit buildings(G+7); 2 EWS buildings (S+24); 2 MIG buildings (S+7); 1183 tenements and 18 shops.No. of buildings in pocket II: 4 transit buildings (G+7); 2 EWS buildings (S+24); 2 MIGbuildings (S+22); 1854 tenements and 51 shops. Parking spaces proposed: 223 forpocket I and 308 for pocket II. RG area: 2,438 sq.m. for pocket I and 2,096 sq.m. forpocket II. Total no. of trees to be planted: 227.

Decision: The project proponent has generally complied with the points raised duringthe last meeting as well as during the site visit by a sub-committee of the Committee. Itwas decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.

New cases

Item No.12b

Project proponent:M/s Bhairavanath Sugar Works Ltd. (Unit II), Vihal, Taluka Karmala,Solapur District.

Name of the project and location: Proposed 2500 TCD sugar unit and 12 MWcogeneration plant.

Decision: In view of the 2009 amendment to the MoEF notification regardingenvironmental clearance, the above project is exempt from the requirement of obtainingEC.


13/27

13

Item No.12c

Project proponent:M/s Bhairvanath Sugar Works Ltd., Sonari.

Name of the project and location: Proposed 2500 TCD sugar unit and 15 MWcogeneration plant.

Decision: In view of the 2009 amendment to the MoEF notification regardingenvironmental clearance, the above project is exempt from the requirement of obtainingEC.

Other cases

The project proponent in respect of the case at s.no. 10 (M/s Shree Renuka Sugar Ltd.)did not attend the meeting. As such, the case was closed.

Chairman, SEAC


14/27

14


Present

1. Shri PMA Hakeem - Chairman2. Dr. (Mrs) Medha Dixit - Member3. Dr. Kishore Bhoir - Member4. Dr. SB Chaphekar - Member5. Dr. SK Padole - Member6. Dr. TG More - Member7. Shri DJ Bharati - Secretary

New cases

Item No.1

Project proponent: M/s Bestech Hospitalities Pvt Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Krishna Ganga Enviro System Pvt Ltd., Nagpur.

Name of the project and location: Construction of the hotel Radisson Nagpur atNagpur classified under 8(a) category B2.


Total plot area: 6,804 sq.m. FSI construction: 17,123 sq.m. Total construction: 24,057sq.m. Total number of rooms: 214. No. of floors: 3B+G+10 floors. Total parking area (inthe basement): 6,934 sq.m. (245 four wheelers, 384 scooters and 389 cycles).

Decision: The project proponent clarified that based on the available FSI, the totalpermissible construction would be 19,183 sq.m. Construction on this is going on. Thepresent proposal is based on their expectation that the Government would sanctionadditional FSI permitting total construction of 24,057 sq.m. Though the proposal isotherwise in order, it was pointed out to the project proponent that a formalrecommendation of their proposal can be made only after the Government sanctionsadditional FSI. As and when they get Government approval, they may approach the

Committee.

Item No.4

Project proponent: M/s AY Associates (subsidiary of HDIL)

Consultant:M/s Enviro Analysts & Engineers Pvt Ltd.


15/27

15

Name of the project and location: Residential township at S.No. 942, Village Mahim,Taluka Palghar, District Thane classified under 8(b) category B1.


Total land: 6,83,910 sq.m. Total construction area: 6,66,703 sq.m. Total no.oftenements: 15,478. Land for phase I: 3,92,050 sq.m. Total construction area for phase I:3,98,047 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 3,33,193 sq.m.). No. of buildings for phase I: 158(G+4). No. of tenements for phase I: 9610. No. of shops in phase I: 1140. Parkingspaces proposed for phase I: 1,889.

Decision: It was noted that there are major problems with this ambitious proposal (evenrestricting to the so-called phase I, consisting of 17 sectors) mainly relating to theavailability of water and means of disposal of treated effluent.

The project proponent has presented a copy of the letter from the Village Panchayatstating that water would be made available from the MJP Scheme as and when it would

be implemented. The requirement of fresh water for phase I is 2.96 MLD. The projectproponent should contact MJP and get firm commitment on the following: (i) whetherthey would be in a position to meet the requirement of such a huge quantity of water,though it may be through the intermediary of Village Panchayat? (ii) What is the cost ofthe water supply scheme which will provide water to the area along with the adjoiningareas? (iii) When is the work on the water supply project likely to be started and when isit expected to be completed? (iv) Whether adequate budget provisions will be made tocomplete the project as per this time limit? (v) Will the water to be supplied by MJP berequired to be treated? A related question is how will the water requirement during theconstruction period be met.

The total sewage expected to be generated during phase I is 3.60 MLD. On the question

of utilization of the excess treated effluent (so as to ensure zero discharge), there is nosewer line in the area, as it is outside the municipal limits. The project proponent hasproposed to utilize the excess treated effluent on 29 hectares of land in the whole plot.In this connection, the following questions need to be considered seriously and answersprovided: (i) Is there any likelihood of the Palghar municipal limits getting extended to theproject area and a municipal sewer line being constructed in the area? If so, what is areasonable time limit? (ii) What are the types of horticulture and other crops that will betaken up in the 29 hectare area and what are their water requirements? (iii) Duringdiscussion, it was found that the proposal to store the treated effluent in ponds involvedsubstantial pumping of the effluent. Can this be minimized, particularly if only a part ofphase I (say one third) is taken up initially?

There is no possibility of considering the proposal unless satisfactory answers to theabove two crucial issues are available. Further, it will be necessary to break up phase Iof the project as indicated above. After these issues are sorted out, the projectproponent will have to pay attention to the following issues also;

(i) Elevated water tanks will have to be provided for each sector.

(ii) Proper management of medical waste.


16/27

16

(iii) Effective storm water drainage involving proper estimation of storm water, designof proper drainage and disposal in Nala after ensuring that the Nala has adequatecapacity and that it would not lead to flooding of lower plots.

Item No.6

Project proponent: M/s Kalpataru Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Mitcon Consultancy, Pune.

Name of the project and location: Kalpataru Splendor, a residential project atWakad, Pune classified under 8(a) category B2.


Total plot area: 19,250 sq.m. Net plot area: 16,146 sq.m. Total construction area: 42,849sq.m (of which 23,777 sq.m. under FSI). No. of buildings: 9 (4 with 12 storeys and 5 with

11 storeys). Total no. of tenements: 315. No. of parking spaces proposed: 209 for cars,644 for scooters and 630 for cycles. Green area: 4,731 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted:192.

Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmentalclearance subject to the project proponent complying with the following:

(i) The design of the STP may be submitted along with the raw sewagecharacteristics.

(ii) The hydraulic flow design for sewerage from the farthest point to STP showing allthe levels may be furnished.

(iii) Trees may be planted all along the perimeter and the variety of flowering treesmay be increased.

Item No.7

Project proponent: M/s Western India Tanneries Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Ultra-tech Environmental Consultancy & Laboratory, Thane (W).

Name of the project and location: Green World residential cum commercial project

at Dighe, Navi Mumbai classified under 8(a) category B2.


Total plot area: 40,468 sq.m. Total construction area: 1,15,083 sq.m. (of which FSI areais 60,376 sq.m.). No. of residential buildings: 11 (ten with S+22 floors and one with S+21floors) with 920 flats. No. of shops: 56. Parking: B+G and club house with podiumgarden. Hotel building: B+G+8 floors with 48 floors. Green cover area: 11,936 sq.m. No.of trees to be planted: 373.


17/27

17


(i) The gap between each wing is 3m in front and 9 m at the back. The gap in frontshould be increased to 5-6 m.

(ii) The detailed justification for the number of lifts as per the NBC guidelines may befurnished.

Item No.8

Project proponent: M/s Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt Ltd.


Name of the project and location: Proposed residential project at Parel Tank Road,Kalachowki, Village Parel, Mumbai classified under 8(b) category B1.


Gross plot area: 28,924 sq.m. Net plot area: 28,363 sq.m. Total construction area:2,96,458 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 84,213 sq.m. and including 1,04,370 sq.m. forMCGM parking). Residential building: 3 wings (G+9P+S+55 floors) with 948 tenements.Landscape area: 12,054 sq.m. No. of captive parking spaces as per norms: 1830. No.of captive parking spaces proposed: 1935. No. of MCGM parking spaces proposed:1248.

Decision: The proposal involves construction of MCGM parking. Government approvalfor the same is yet to be obtained. Till it is obtained and a copy produced, the proposalcannot be considered. Meanwhile the following preliminary remarks are offered:

(i) The proposal to construct 9 podia is not at all acceptable. There is considerablescope for reducing the same substantially, since the parking areas proposed (both forMCGM parking and captive parking) are on a prohibitively high scale. The area of1,04,370 sq.m. for 1243 municipal parking spaces gives an average of 83.6 sq.m, whichis about 240 to 250% of the norms. It has been stated that as per norms 1830 parkingspaces have to be provided for captive use. The basis of arriving at this figure must befurnished. Against a claimed norm of 1830, the project proponent has proposed toprovide 1935 parking spaces on a total area of 74,529 sq.m., giving an average of 38.5

sq.m. per car, which is again higher than the norm by about 30%.

(ii) The ground coverage of 52% shown does not appear to be correct. It should beworked out taking into account the area of the podia also.

(iii) A clearance of at least 10 m should be left all around the building between thepodium line and the boundary.


18/27

18

(iv) The proposal to have 100% RG on the podium is not at all acceptable. At least50% of the RG should be on the ground.

(v) The cantilever for parking refuge area on the 7thfloor is to be avoided.

(vi) The BMC share of the vacant land as per the Mill Policy is a very narrow strip

and is also shown as part of the amenity area. This needs to be clarified with referenceto the provisions of the DC rules.

(vii) Consent of MCGM for supply of fresh water required by the project should beobtained and a copy furnished.

(viii) The underground tank for rainwater harvesting needs to be made bigger and alsorelocated.

(ix)` With regard to the vehicles coming in from and out to the Dinshaw Petit Marg, thecomments of the traffic police may be obtained.

(x) The proposed tree plantation on the terrace has no ecological significance. Thenumber of trees to be planted on the ground needs to be increased.

Item No.9

Project proponent: M/s Mahaveer Construction


Name of the project and location: Proposed Slum Rehabiliation Scheme at Kandivali

(E), village Wadhawan, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai classified under 8(a) category B2.


Plot area: 5,821 sq.m. Total construction: 28,061 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 17,435sq.m.). Building no. 1: three rehabilitation wings (G+22) 301 tenements; one sale wing(S+21) 40 tenements. Building no. 2 two sale wings (S+2P+19) 90 tenements.Total parking spaces to be provided: 101. Landscape area: 479 sq.m.

Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmentalclearance subject to the project proponent exploring the possibility of providing oneadditional staircase for the rehabilitation wing A.

Item No.10

Project proponent: M/s Vinati Organics Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Aditya Environmental Services Pvt Ltd.


19/27

19

Name of the project and location: Enhancement in production capacity by addition ofnew products and by-products in existing premises at plot no. A-20, MIDC, LoteParshuram, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri. Category B2.


Total plot area: 87,949 sq.m. Proposed built up area: 6,019 sq.m. Green belt area:12,253 sq.m. Existing production capacity: 1300 TPM. Additional capacity: 1083 TPM.

Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmentalclearance.

Item No.11

Project proponent: M/s Karan Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Mantras Resources

Name of the project and location: Expansion of capacity (from 22 KLPD to 29 KLPD)of the grain based distillery and 0.25 MW coal based captive power plant classifiedunder 5(g) and 1(d) category B2.


Plot area: 12.28 hectares. Green belt area: 4 hectares.

Decision: it was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmentalclearance, subject to the condition that the project proponent submits copies of the

environmental audit reports and environmental monitoring reports for the last two years.

Item No.12

Project proponent: M/s Universal Development Corporation

Consultant:M/s Ultra-tech Environmental Consultancy & Labortory, Thane (W).

Name of the project and location: Residential project Aristo Harmony at villageKandivali at Bunderpakhadi Road, Kandivali (W), Taluka Borivali, Mumbai classified

under 8(b) category B1.


Total plot area: 65,193 sq.m. Net plot area: 37,633 sq.m. Total construction area:1,99,350 sq.m (of which FSI area is 94,083 sq.m.). Rehabilitation buildings: seven wings(7 to 21 floors) with 1612 tenements and 172 shops. Sale buildings: 8 wings (B+G+P+S+service floor + 18 floors) with 560 flats. No. of parking spaces to be provided: 620 (491cars and 129 two wheelers). Green cover area: 7,501 sq.m. Trees to be planted: 649.


20/27

20

Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmentalclearance. The project proponent was requested to plant trees all along the perimeter ofthe plot.

Item No.13

Project proponent: M/s Infosys Technologies Ltd.


Name of the project and location: Proposed expansion of IT project at plot no. 24,Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Phase II, Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, Pune classifiedunder 8(b) category B1.


Total plot area: 4,61,264 sq.m. Existing built up area: 3,81,891 sq.m. Proposedconstruction area: 2,40,728 sq.m. (making a total of 6,22,619 sq.m.). Ground coveragewith proposed expansion: 20%. No. of existing buildings: 14 (ranging from G+1 toLG+G+14). Proposed buildings: 5 (ranging from G+2 to LG1+Lg2+G+10)


Item No.14

Project proponent: M/s Heidelbergcement India Ltd.


Name of the project and location: Proposed expansion project of cement grinding unitat Village Khar Karavi, Gadab, Taluka Pen, District Raigad classified under 3(b) category B2.


Existing capacity: 0.97 MTPA. Capacity after expansion: 1.70 MTPA. Stack height:48m.

Decision: This is a standalone clinker project, which can be categorized as B2. It wasdecided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.


21/27

21

Item No.24

Project proponent: M/s Arun Ganesh Vartak

Consultant:M/s Enviro Analysts and Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.

Name of the project and location: Residential cum Shop line building at village Akole,Taluka Vasai, District Thane classified under 8(a) category B2.


Plot area: 25,698 sq.m. Total construction area: 32,605 sq.m. (of which FSI area is23,638 sq.m.). No. of buildings: four; B1 & B2 G+7 with 3 wings; B3 B+G+7 with 5wings; B4 - G+7 with 4 wings. No. of flats: 494. No. of offices 107. No. of shops 107. No. of parking spaces proposed: 88 for cars and 630 for two-wheelers. RG area:1,487 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 257

Decision: The main issue relates to disposal of treated effluent, since there is no sewer

line in the project area. If the area forms part of the municipal corporation, the exactstatus of sanction of the sewerage system with relevant details like cost of the project,likely date of start of work, annual budget provision and likely date of completion of workmay be ascertained from the municipal authorities and submitted.

Other cases

The case at s.no. 2 (M/s Videocon Atithi Shelters Pvt Ltd.) will be taken up in a latermeeting as per the request of the project proponent. In respect of cases at s.nos. 3 and5 (M/s Vibrant Global Vidyut Pvt Ltd. and Executive Engineer, Upper Penganga project),

their requests for approval of TOR for EIA were already approved earlier. The case ats.no. 24 (M/s Arun Ganesh Vartak), slated for 20thOctober, was considered today, asper the request made by the project proponent.

Chairman, SEAC


22/27

22


Present

1. Shri PMA Hakeem - Chairman2. Shri GK Deshpande - Member3. Dr. (Mrs) Medha Dixit - Member4. Dr. Kishore Bhoir - Member5. Dr. SB Chaphekar - Member6. Dr. SK Padole - Member7. Dr. TG More - Member8. Shri DJ Bharati - Secretary

New cases

Item No.15

Project proponent: M/s TATA Communications Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Senes Consultants India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai.

Name of the project and location: Expansion of TATA Communications IDC Complexat Dighi, Pune classified under 8(b) category B1.


(Overall project): Total plot area: 100.36 hectares. Total built up area: 5,57,418 sq.m. (ofwhich 4,53,186 sq.m is FSI area). (Present expansion): Plot area: 79,600 sq.m. Built uparea: 1,00,500 sq.m. No. of buildings: Nine (floors varying from one to six).

Decision: This is an expansion of the project for which EC was issued in March 2009.It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearancesubject to the project proponent furnishing the following:

(i) A statement indicating the break up of built up area and water balance betweenthe two phases.

(ii) A detailed note on EMP indicating the details of the in house management cell.

(iii) A note on disposal of e-waste.

(iv) Quality of the effluent with the proposed treatment.

(v) Details of the proposed arrangements for workers during the construction phasesuch as workers camp, sanitation etc.


23/27

23

(vi) A note indicating the status of compliance of the conditions imposed whilegranting EC for the phase I.

(vii) All drawings to carry name and signature.

Item No.16

Project proponent: M/s Shree Samarth Spark Developers

Consultant:M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd., Thane (W).

Name of the project and location: Construction of residential/commercial projectunder slum rehabilitation scheme at village Mulund (E), Taluka Kurla, Mumbai classified under 8(a) category B2.


Total plot area: 28,168 sq.m. Net plot area: 17,186 sq.m. Total construction area:97,216 sq.m.(of which FSI area is 45,395 sq.m.). Total no. of buildings: 7 - tworehabilitation buildings (G+18) with 588 tenements, one hostel (G+2), one bungalow(S+2), sale building with two residential wings (B+G+2P+35 floors) and two commercialwings (B+G+1 and S+5 floors); one residential building (G+P+15 floors) and anotherresidential building with two wings (S+P+21 and S+P+7). total tenements for sale: 379.No. of tenements in the hostel: 21.

Decision: The project proponent was requested to comply with the following:

(i) The podium of the residential building no. 5 is touching the plot boundary. Aminimum distance of 6m should be left between the edge of the podium and the plotboundary.

(ii) The number of parking spaces provided is 375 as against a requirement of 300based on the norms. The number should be reduced to 300 and accordingly onepodium should be reduced.

(iii) The STP design should be corrected as discussed.

(iv) In respect of the buildings 2, 3 and 4, all RG areas are in the driveways orinternal roads. RGs should be provided exclusively.

(v) The piece of land provided for the rehabilitation portion is too small and fardisproportionate. This needs to be corrected.

(vi) The side margins for the rehabilitation building should be increased by one metrefor every additional storey beyond seven metres.

(vii) The non-slum area is to be developed as per Collectors orders. Accordinglyarea of the plot is to be provided in proportion to income and 20% is to be reserved for


24/27

24

SC and ST. A detailed note may be submitted indicating how the various conditions arebeing fulfilled.

Item No.17

Project proponent: M/s Pioneer Gas Power Ltd.

Consultant:M/s SD Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad.

Name of the project and location: 425 MW Natural Gas based power plant at D-119,Ville-Bhagad, MIDC, Tehsil Mangaon, District Raigad - classified under 1(d) categoryB1.


Total plot area: 20.56 hectares. Area to be used for process: 10 hectares. Green belt

area: 10 hectares. Water requirement: 11,000 c.m daily. Technology gas turbine heat recovery. Natural gas requirement daily: 17,55,445 S c.m. daily.


(i) Fresh reports of testing of surface and ground water may be submitted aftercarrying out the tests.

(ii) A note on fire safety measures particularly keeping in mind possible gasleakages may be submitted.

Item No.20

Project proponent: M/s Aura Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Ultra Tech Environmental Consultancy & Laboratory, Thane (W).

Name of the project and location: Residential Development at village Wakad, TahsilMulshi, District Pune classified under 8(a) category B2.


Total plot area: 32,470 sq.m. Net plot area: 27,265 sq.m. Total construction area: 67,798sq.m. (of which FSI area is 38,951 sq.m.). No. of buildings two, each with G+12 withthree wings with 482 tenements and commercial area of 730 sq.m. Parking spacesproposed to be provided: 326 cars, 1009 scooters and 979 cycles. Green area: 5,450sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 277.



25/27

25

Item No.21

Project proponent: M/s Puranik Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.


Name of the project and location: The project Aldea Espanola at Mhalunge nearBalewadi Sport Complex, Village Mhalunge, Tahsil Mulshi, Pune District classifiedunder 8(a) category B2.


Total plot area: 67,830 sq.m. Net plot area: 55,100 sq.m. Total construction area:91,289 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 61,330 sq.m.). No. of buildings: 17 (four with S+7; 13with S+12), 26 row houses and 15 bungalows. Total no. of flats: 794. No. of shops: 24.

Total parking spaces proposed: 613 for cars and 1149 for two wheelers. Landscapearea: 6,482 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 1,142.

Decision: The project proponent stated that they had earlier planned to construct 9906sq.m and 9002 sq.m respectively on two plots and got sanction from the town planningauthority. Work was taken up accordingly. Later they decided to go for amalgamation ofthe developments and applied for EC. After applying for EC, they stopped work.

It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of environmental clearance.

Item No.22

Project proponent: M/s Sunrise Industries


Name of the project and location: Proposed cement grinding unit at Gut no. 169/2,Bilkhed, Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon classified under 3(b) category B2.


Land available: 6,000 sq.m. Proposed capacity: Cement (mixing and grinding): 10 MTD.Cement bricks and paver blocks: 15MTD. Water requirement: 5.5 KLD.



26/27

26

Item No.23

Project proponent: M/s National Standard India Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd., Thane (W).

Name of the project and location: IT development at Wagle Industrial Estate, MIDC,Thane (W) classified under 8(a) category B2.


Total plot area: 32,861 sq.m. Net plot area: 29,575 sq.m. Total built up area: 1,14,393sq.m. (of which FSI area is 59,148 sq.m.) IT buildings: 3 one B+P+S+10 floors; onewith B+P+S+4 floors; and one with B+P+S+8 floors. Staff buildings: 3 one with P+17floors; one with P+18 floors; and one with P+1 floor. Parking spaces proposed: 1265.


(i) The ground coverage may be brought down to 50-55% by reducing the areaunder the podium.

(ii) Details of architectural features for effective shading of the walls may befurnished.

Item No.27

Project proponent: M/s Borossil Glass Works Ltd.


Name of the project and location: Proposed residential cum commercial project atVillage Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai classified under 8(b) category B1.


Total plot area: 77,268 sq.m. Net plot area: 53,378 sq.m. Total construction area:2,02,338 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 1,00,885 sq.m.). No. of residential buildings: 15(B+S+12 floors) with 1,136 flats. Commercial building: one (G+7). Total parking spacesproposed: 3,000. RG area: 10,730 sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 464.


(i) The number of car parking spaces proposed is 3000, based on the existingnorms. The calculations for the same may be furnished.

(ii) The number of punctures on the main road may be limited to a maximum of threeto avoid traffic hazards. Only left turning vehicles may be allowed.


27/27

Item No.29

Project proponent: M/s Shree Pushkar Petro Products Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Aditya Environmental Services.Pvt Ltd.

Name of the project and location: Manufacture of single superphosphate anddicalcium phosphate (DCP) at the existing unit at MIDC, Lote Parshuram, Khed,Ratnagiri District.


Total area of land: 19,417 sq.m. Built up area: 2,780 sq.m. Green belt: 4,500 sq.m.Capacity for the proposed products: Single super phosphate: 1,00,000 MT/A; DCP:4,500 MT/A. Category B.

Decision: The project proponent has already carried out EIA, whose findings werepresented in the meeting. It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of priorenvironmental clearance.

Item No.29a

Project proponent: M/s Ultraspace Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Consultant:M/s Enviro Analysts & Engineers Pvt Ltd.

Name of the project and location: insignia having residential building at villageKolekalyan, Santacruz (E), Mumbai.

Decision: It was found that the proposal involved construction of MCGM parking.Government approval for the same has not been obtained. The project proponent mayapproach the Committee after obtaining the same. Detailed presentation may be doneat that time.

Other cases

The case at s.no. 18 (M/s Marvel Creating Landmarks) will be taken up later asrequested by the project proponent. The cases at s.nos. 19, 25, 26 and 28 (M/sSuperintending Engineer, Gosikhurd LIS; Lord Shree Ganesh Developers; JaibhavaniSahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.; and Samruddha Resources Ltd.) were closed as theproject proponents failed to attend the meeting. The case at s.no. 24 (M/s Arun GaneshVartak) was taken up on 19thOctober, 2010.

Chairman, SEAC

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	amol-deshmukh
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

35MoM_SEAC.pdf

Documents