30MoM_SEAC

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/30momseac 1/23

1

Minutes of the 30th meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)held on 1st July 2010

Present

1. Shri PMA Hakeem - Chairman2. Shri GK Deshpande - Member3. Dr. Kishore Bhoir - Member4. Dr. SB Chaphekar - Member5. Dr. VR Gunale - Member6. Dr. TG More - Member7. Shri DK Mankar - Secretary

Compliance Cases

Item No.1 (Originally considered in the 19th meeting held in November 2009)

Project proponent: Shree Khidkaleshwar Land Developers

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

Name of the project and location: River Wood Park at Village Sagarli, Taluka & District Thane.

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

Total plot area: 1,64,930 sq.m. RG area: 49,389 sq.m. Total built up area as per FSI, based onrevised proposal: 97,698 sq.m (61,311 sq.m. existing and 36,387 sq.m proposed (revised)). Totalconstruction area: 1,13,038 sq.m. (64,546 sq.m. existing and 48,492 sq.m proposed (revised)).Existing buildings: 40 (with 1208 tenements). Proposed buildings: 10 (4 with Stilt + Podium + 14upper floors; 3 with stilt+14 upper floors; 2 with stilt + 7 upper floors; and one with stilt + 3 upperfloors): 658 tenements (revised).

Decision: This is a case which was earlier recommended for rejection, but was referred back bythe Authority for reappraisal based on the assurance of the project proponent to carry out tertiarylevel treatment and to utilize the same to the maximum extent. When the matter was consideredin the meeting held in November 2009, the project proponent proposed to construct 39 new

buildings with 2066 flats in addition to the existing buildings. It was pointed out to them that it wasnot at all advisable to permit discharge of treated effluent from so many flats to the open Nala.They had also indicated that TMC had proposed to take up sewerage project in the area; theywere then advised to ascertain from TMC the latest status of the same.

The project proponent has now stated that TMC would take some time to take up the sewerageproject. Instead they have now proposed that:

(i) The size of the proposed project has been significantly reduced from 39 buildings to 10,2066 flats to 658 flats, total construction area from 1,68,056 sq.m. to 48,492 sq.m.

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


2

(ii) The excess treated sewage (after meeting the requirements for flushing and gardening)will not be let out of the project area, but will be used for gardening in the RG area and greendevelopment and horticulture in the balance area of 7.1 hectares.

(iii) In order to ensure full utilization of the surplus treated effluent (particularly duringmonsoon) they will construct two interconnected ponds of 15,150 cubic m. capacity and that the

water in the ponds will be subjected to surface aeration.

Based on the above, the Committee decided to recommend the revised proposal for grant of priorenvironmental clearance subject to the project proponent complying with the following:

(i) Confirming that the proposal does not attract the provision of CRZ guidelines and that therequired buffer zone has been left from the edge of the Nala.

(ii) Committing to be responsible on long term bassi to ensure full utilization of surplus treatedeffluent as explained above, take care of the safety aspects as the ponds are to be located in themiddle of the construction area, indicate the necessary arrangements such as use of pumps etc.and ensure that storm water does not get mixed up with the treated effluent.

Item No.2 (Originally considered in the 25th meeting held in March 2010).

Project proponent: M/s Kukadi Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Consultant: M/s Yogiraj Industrial Consultants, Pune.

Name of the project and location: Proposed 16MW cogeneration power plant at KukadiSahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Pimpalgaon Pisa, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar.

Decision: Compliance was furnished in respect of the points raised in the last meeting. Theinspection report of the MPCB officer was also furnished indicating the functioning of the STP andthe use of the treated effluent within the factory premises. It was decided to recommend theproposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.

Item No.3 (Originally considered in the 28th meeting held in May 2010).

Project proponent: M/s Sheetal Sagar Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd.

Consultant: M/s Green Circle Consultants (I) Pvt Ltd., Borivali (E), Mumbai.

Name of the project and location: Proposed redevelopment of Lokmanya Nagar PriyadarshiniCo.operative Housing Society Ltd. at TP Scheme IV of Mahim Division at the junction of SenapatiBapat Marg and Kakasaheb Gadgil Marg, Mumbai.


Total plot area: 11,984 sq.m. Total built up area as per FSI: 47,937 sq.m. Total constructionarea: 1,25,854 sq.m. (now reduced to 1,00,825 sq.m). Buildings – Tenant building: ST+23 floors(262 flats); MHADA building: 2 basements + G+ 1 podium + 4 stilts + 28 floors (523 flats); Sale

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


3

building: 2 basements+ G + 5 stilts + 54 floors (228 flats). No. of parking spaces required: 347.Parking spaces proposed to be provided: 594 (now reduced to 360). RG area: 2,776 sq.m.

Decision: The project proponent has generally complied with the points raised in the lastmeeting. Specifically the total construction area has been reduced from 1,25,854 sq.m to1,00,825 sq.m (non-FSI area being reduced from 77,917 sq.m. to 52,888 sq.m.) and the numberof parking spaces proposed to be provided from 594 to 360 (against the requirement of 347 as

per norms). It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmentalclearance.

Item No.4 (Originally considered in the 5th meeting held in November 2008).

Project proponent: M/s Ashoka Properties Pvt Ltd.

Consultant: M/s Mitcon Consultancy Services, Pune.

Name of the project and location: “Kalpataru Serenity”: Residential project at Village Manjari,

Taluka Haveli, District Pune.


Area of the plot: 69,600 sq.m. Proposed built up area (FSI): 63,753 sq.m. Proposed constructionarea: 93,656 sq.m. No. of buildings: six (five with S+12 floors and one with S+9). Total number oftenements: 1,111. RG area: 6,879 sq.m. Parking spaces proposed to be provided: 584 for carsand 1183 for two wheelers.

Decision: It was stated by the project proponent that they took time to come back to theCommittee as additional FSI became available only very recently. After the presentation, theproject proponent was requested to furnish clarification in respect of the following points.

Considering that this is an old case, the project proponent may bring compliance to the meetingto be held on 28th July 2010.

(i) It was stated by the proponents during presentation that as per the DC rules 25% of areafor RG, amenity and open spaces is to be deducted from plot area and FSI of 1 is to be appliedon the net area. However, the actual FSI calculations deduct only 10% of area for working outthe BUA. This discrepancy may be rectified.

(ii) It is seen that the water supply for the colony is to be obtained from the IrrigationDepartment from the Khadakwasla canal; however, the permission for it is still awaited. This maybe obtained and furnished.

(iii) The quality of raw water may be ascertained and then the treatment to achieve therequired standards as per CPCB norms be decided. Such details may be furnished.

(iv) The details of sewage treatment with capacity of each unit may be furnished.

(v) It is proposed to discharge the excess treated effluent into the drains of Manjari VillagePanchayat. All relevant details of the drains such as capacity, destination to which the drainstake the sewerage etc. may be ascertained and furnished. It may be confirmed that the drains arecovered and not open. It may be also advisable to supply the surplus treated effluent for irrigation

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


4

of the agricultural lands around. If possible arrangements may be tied up with farmers in thisregard and details furnished.

(vi) A note may be furnished on the generation of sewage sludge and its disposal.

(vii) It was informed that the recharge bore holes will be over 100m in depth to discharge intothe aquifer. This may be confirmed.

(viii) The designs for storm water drainage and rain water harvesting furnished need to berevised. This may be done and full details on a large scale map submitted. The outfall is notshown nor the sections of drains. The discharge calculations cannot be on the basis of yearlytotal rainfall.

(ix) From the details of cut and fill quantity it is clear that the work has already been donewithout prior EC. This may be explained.

Item No.5 (Originally considered in the 28th meeting held in May 2010)

Project proponent: M/s Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd.

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

Name of the project and location: Residential and commercial development at plot bearingC.S. Nos. 443, 444, 445(P), 446 and 453 of Lower Parel Division, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai.


Total plot area: 54,287 sq.m. Net plot area: 53,684 sq.m. FSI construction proposed: 2,07,581sq.m. Total construction: 7,14,328 sq.m, now reduced to 6,38,847 sq.m, (including 2,34,000

sq.m for Municipal car parking). No.of buildings: (i) Residential: Building -1 : 2B + 5P + S +111floors (5P subsequently reduced to 4P). Building-2: 2B + 5P + S + 57 floors (5P subsequentlyreduced to 4P). Tenant building: S+18. (ii) Commercial: Building -1 : 2B + 5P + 36 floors (5P laterreduced to 4P). Building - 2: 2B + L + 3P + 13 floors. (iii) Muncipal Car Park: 3B + G + 18 floors.Total number of residential flats: 993. Required parking as per municipal norms: 3,228. Parkingproposed: 3,786 (subsequently reduced to 3,228).

Decision: After the last meeting certain observations were communicated to the projectproponent. One point was that according to the proposal, the total construction (including themunicipal car parking), was more than 13.3 times the net plot area and the non-FSI constructionwas as high as 244% of the FSI construction. It was suggested to reduce these significantly; itwas also pointed out that the four podia proposed were very high (they had already reduced it

from five). The project proponent has now reported that the total construction area proposed now6,38,847 sq.m (including the Municipal parking) is less than 12 times the net plot area. The totalnon-FSI area now including Municipal car parking has been reduced to 208% of FSI area andexcluding Municipal car parking is around 95% as against 131% proposed earlier. Regarding thenumber of podia, they have stated that since they are keeping two to three acres of space open, itis not possible to reduce it further, over and above the reduction already made from 5 to 4.

Considering the above and considering that other points raised have been by and large compliedwith, it was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance,subject to the project proponent obtaining the clearances of the high rise building committee andthe Air Port Authority and submitting copies of the same.

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


5

Item No.6 (Originally considered in the 28th meeting held in May 2010)

Project proponent: M/s Vinita Estate Pvt Ltd.

Consultant: M/s Gadark Lab Pvt Ltd., Vikhroli, Mumbai.

Name of the project and location: “Viceroy Park”, residential building on land bearing CTS No.3/5 at Village Dahisar (W).


Plot area: 15,616 sq.m. Total construction area: 36,244 sq.m. (of which FSI area is 15,280 sq.m).Residential building: Wing A: Stilt + 26 floors; and Wing B: Stilt + 20 floors (212 tenements). RGarea: 3,904 sq.m. Parking area: 9,900 sq.m. No. of parking spaces: 289.

Decision: The observations made in the last meeting have been generally complied with. It was

decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance, subject to theproject proponent complying with the following:

(i) The building no. 2 (for BEST) may be shifted slightly so that RG will be available to theresidents close to the place of their residence.

(ii) There should be 3m space all around, if necessary by shifting the parking right up to theCRZ line.

(iii) Construction of the proposed stack parking may not be taken up in the CRZ zone.

Item No.7 (Considered in the 29th meeting held in June 2010).

Project proponent: M/s Reddy Builders and Developers

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

Name of the project and location: Proposed Development for Shri Ganesha Ekta SRA CHS &Omkar, Tanaji and Kranti SRA CHS Ltd” at Village Pahadi Goregaon, Yashwant Nagar, TeenDongri, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -64.


Total plot area: 19,260 sq.m. Net plot area: 15,214 sq.m. Ground coverage: 51.5%. BUA as perFSI: 50,151 sq.m. Total construction area: 1,11,526 sq.m. Rehabilitation buildings: 4 (G+15)with 590 flats. Sale building: one with four wings (1 basement + 5 stilts + 1 podium + 35 upperfloors) with 260 flats. No. of trees to be planted: 194. Proposed no. of parking spaces: 589 sq.m.

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

(i) The topography of the surrounding plots around the proposed site are not indicated, butmust be on a higher level on one side and lower on the opposite side, looking to the contour spot

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


6

levels furnished. The proponent has submitted drawings showing the proposed land developmentwhich involves heavy cutting and filling involving high retaining walls and breast walls. Theirdesign needs to be done carefully to prevent land slides from the hill and failure due to heavyearth pressure.

(ii) The storm water drainage details are not clear. It should be ensured that the flow fromhigh land is intercepted and channeled and also flooding of lower plots in the vicinity is prevented.

A detailed lay out with design calculations and sections of drains be furnished and the outfallclearly indicated.

(iii) It was clarified that due to steep slopes on the site, advantage is taken to create parkingspace below the podia and to minimize cutting. It may be confirmed that the parking space isoptimized and no further reduction in the number of podia is possible.

(iv) Quantity of sludge generated may be worked out and proposals for its disposal submitted.

(v) Location of the collection point for biodegradable solid waste may be indicated and dailyarrangements for its collection explained in the EMP. There should be provision of necessarytesting equipment for monitoring the quality of drinking water as well as the effluent from STP.

The organization for management of EMP for the entire project including rehabilitation portionmay be indicated.

Item No.8 (Originally considered in the 15th meeting held in August 2009 and again in the 29th meeting)

Project proponent: M/s Solanki & Associates

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

Name of the project and location: Slum rehabilitation project of Bahram Sudhar CommitteeCHS Ltd.


Plot area: 15,257 sq.m. Total BUA: 44,537 sq.m. Residential tenements: 481. Tenements forPAPs: 245 (total 726). Residential cum commercial tenements: 14. Commercial tenements: 3.Sale building: one (two basements plus 13 floors). Total sale area: 24,396 sq.m.

Decision: In the last meeting the project proponent was requested to obtain the DP remarksfrom MMRDA. The same has now been obtained and copy furnished. It was decided torecommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance.

Item No.9

Project proponent: M/s Matoshree Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

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

Name of the project and location: Proposed redevelopment of M/s Jeevan Nagar Co-operativeHousing Society, Matoshree Nisarg, Mulund (E), Mumbai

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


8

(iv) Additional requirement of water for the expansion of the project may be indicatedexplaining how the same would be met, taking into account the existing problems of water supplyin the area including the need for tanker water.

(v) EMP for the completed parts and the expansion project, the proposed procedure forconveyance of land to societies, corpus fund, testing facilities and organizational arrangement for

EMP may be explained.

(vi) Excessive use of glass (as seen in the sample flats) may be reviewed in the interest ofenergy conservation; so also the need for natural ventilation for the flats may be considered withsafety and security aspects

(vii) Though a number of trees have been planted in the completed parts, there is scope toincrease the number of trees in the compounds of the buildings and along the sides of the internalroads. The treated effluent can be used growing the trees. The proposals in this regard may befurnished.

Item No.11 (Originally considered in the 29th meeting in June 2010)

Project proponent: M/s Renaissance Infrastructure (the name indicated in the agenda papers isM/s Shukal Textiles Pvt Ltd.)

Consultant: M/s Enviro Analsysts and Engineers Private Ltd, Borivali (E), Mumbai.

Name of the project and location: Industrial Park – Industrial Estate for Service Industries andTextile Cluster at village Vashere, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane.


Plot area: 100.36 hectares. Proposed FSI area: 6,74,066 sq.m. Green cover area: 1,89,376sq.m. Proposed parking: 1,357 for cars, 368 for trucks, 815 for bicycles; and 542 for scooters.

Area for parking: 35,283 sq.m.

Decision: The case was first presented in the meeting held on 19th June 2010. It was thenindicated that considering the nature and size of the project some time would be needed to studythe papers and drawings submitted by the project proponent and that the comments andobservations on the same would be communicated later. The project proponent is now requestedto comply with the following points:

(i) Copies of Government orders regarding the development of such new types of projects,

the rules for their development etc. may be furnished.

(ii) The permissible FSI is shown as on the gross plot area without any deductions. Thisneeds to be verified.

(iii) The green areas are required to be clubbed into three or four large central areas to reallyserve the purpose of recreation and openness to the layout. They are shown as small, dispersedpatches and may, therefore, be relocated.

(iv) Permission for taking water from Pisa dam (as proposed) may be produced along with thetest results for ascertaining its quality along with proposed treatment and quality after treatment.

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


9

(v) The contour plan submitted is not clear. Only illegible spot levels are given. Contour linesmay be drawn and plan resubmitted for proper appreciation of topography. All existing electriclines, natural drainage lines, roads, structures, trees etc. may be shown on the plan and featuresof surrounding plots also indicated.

(vi) The quantity of treated effluent proposed to be used for gardening is shown as 947 cu.m.

per day. This is quite high considering the available green area particularly during monsoon andneeds to be reconsidered. Revised proposals for disposal of treated effluent may be submitted.

(vii) Entry and exit points from the State Highway may be limited to two to avoid traffic hazardand only left turning traffic be permitted.

(viii) The layout of typical individual plots of different types may be shown to appreciate theopen areas in each plot. Control regulations to be followed in this respect may be furnished.

(ix) The types of green industries to be allowed on the plots may be enlisted along with theexpected components in their raw discharge.

(x) Details of STPs proposed to be set up may be furnished.

(xi) It will be desirable to keep the STPs and water tanks sufficiently away from each other.

(xii) Storage of terrace rain water for rain water harvesting may be considered seriously andproposals in this regard submitted.

Chairman, SEAC

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


10

Minutes of the 30th meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)held on 2nd July 2010

Present


New Cases

Item No.1

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

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

Name of the project and location: ‘DLF Luxury’ (residential development with public parking) atSenapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai.


Gross plot area: 69,803 sq.m. Net plot area: 65,684 sq.m. Ground coverage: 56%. Total FSIconstruction: 2,10,028 sq.m. Total construction area: 9,64,141 sq.m (7,15,105 sq.m for captiveuse and 2,49,035 sq.m for municipal parking). Details of building: Wing A: Stilt + 85 floors – 464flats; Wing B: Stilt + 85 floors – 464 flats; Wing C: Stilt + 45 floors – 174 flats (total 1102 flats0.Public parking building: G+12 floors. Parking proposed for captive use: 1,02,550 sq.m (2768parking spaces). Parking spaces to be provided in the municipal parking portion: 237 buses and4565 cars. Total RG area: 16,666 sq.m (7,793 sq.m on ground and balance on upper floor).Trees to be planted: 924.

Decision: The project is proposed on a land which was previously occupied by an industry. It

was informed that the user of the land is now changed for residential purposes. The proposalswere explained in brief by the architects who have handed over the set of drawings and otherdata related to environmental matters. While the following observations of the Committee aregiven now, additional points may be raised after full study of the drawings and other data:

(i) The actual calculation of additional FSI available on account of providing municipalparking and the resulting cap on FSI may be furnished in accordance with the provisions of theannexure to the GR relating to the Municipal Parking Scheme, based on the location of the plot.

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


11

(ii) The fresh water demand is 507 CMD and surplus treated effluent which will have to bedisposed of is 248 CMD. Specific proposals in this regard may be finalized and indicated.

(iii) The ground coverage needs to be reduced to at least 50%.

(iv) The total construction is 14.7 times the net plot area; it is too high and needs to bereduced substantially.

(v) Public parking area of 2,49,035 sq.m on 12 floors is without any cut outs and depends forlighting and ventilation on artificial energy consuming means. This appears to be undesirable andsuitable cut outs open to sky may be provided. Two cut outs of 5mX15 m in the central portionare suggested.

(vi) It was stated that approvals of the high rise committee and CFO have been taken.Copies of the same may be furnished.

(vii) The proposed 924 trees may be planted on the ground.

(viii) The punctures on public roads for entry and exit of vehicles need to be minimized to avoid

traffic hazard. A large scale plan showing traffic movement may be submitted. Only left turningmovement of vehicles from main roads may be provided wherever possible with sufficient setback for possible queuing.

(ix) The number of DG sets and their capacity for emergency power etc. and the means ofexhaust removal may be clearly indicated.

(x) Disaster management plan with details may be prepared and copy submitted.

(xi) EMP (Environment Management Plan) may be submitted with clear details explaining theproposed organization, equipment, funding, methodology etc.

Item No.2

Project proponent: M/s Yogsiddhi Developers


Name of the project and location: Slum rehabilitation scheme “Bandongri Ekta CHSL” atVillage Akurli at Kandivali (E), Mumbai.


Total plot area: 7,767 sq.m. Net plot area: 6,756 sq.m. BUA as per FSI: 22,057 sq.m. Totalconstruction area: 40,452 sq.m. Details of the buildings: Rehabilitation building with two wings(LG+UG+20 floors) having 163 residential tenements and 159 PAP tenements; Sale building withtwo wings (B+UG+17 floors) having 172 offices and 89 shops. RG area: 787 sq.m. Proposedparking spaces: 118 for four wheelers and 50 four wheelers.

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

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


12

Item No.3

Project proponent: M/s Samir N Bhojwani


Name of the project and location: The project “Permanent Magnet” – a residential building at

village Magathane, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai.


Total plot area: 11,671 sq.m. Net plot area: 10,871 sq.m. Built up area as per FSI: 17,472 sq.m.Total construction area: 59,729 sq.m.Details of building: one residential building with three wings:Stilt/GF + one parking floor + one mezannine floor + 23 upper floors. Green cover area: 4,283sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 240.

Decision: While additional observations may be made after full study of the statements anddrawings, the following points are communicated to the project proponent for compliance:

(i) The proposed non-FSI construction comes to over 240% of the FSI area and needs to bedrastically reduced.

(ii) Car lifts and the proposal for taking cars to each flat are consuming disproportionatelyhigh area and need to be reconsidered. The parking area per car may be worked out taking intoaccount all areas used for activities related to parking. Optimal use of space in this regard willhelp reduce the non-FSI area

(iii) RG area on the ground should be increased as per the provisions of DC rules.

Item No.4

Project proponent: Lucina Land Development Ltd. (The name shown in the agenda papers isM/s Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd.)


Name of the project and location: Residential scheme including MRTP rental scheme called“INDIABULLS GREENS” at Village Kon & Arivali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad.


Total plot area: 95,570 sq.m. Net plot area: 92,058 sq.m. Ground coverage area: 38,853 sq.m.(43% of plot area). Total BUA as per FSI: 3,41,611 sq.m. Total construction built up area:6,03,339 sq.mDetails of the proposed buildings: Sector 1 - Commercial building – B+G+17.Sector 2 – Residential – 3 buildings – B+ST+P+35 floors (469 flats). Sector 3 – Residential - 5buildings – B+ST+P+35 floors (737 flats). Sector 4 – Residential – 7 buildings – B+ST+P+35floors (1139) flats. Sector 5 – Residential - 3 buildings – B+ST+P+35 floors (737 flats). Total flatsfor sale: 3,082. Rental buildings: 7 buildings (G+18) and 8 buildings (G+17) – 4,989 flats and 225shops. Total green cover area on ground: 28,112 sq.m (including 25,987 sq.m on ground). No. oftrees to be planted: 1,112.

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


13

Decision: Based on the presentation made in the meeting the following preliminary observationsare made:

(i) MMRDA’s revised approval dated 24th February 2010 is for locational clearance. Theirapproval may be obtained for the layout as well as for the figure of the rental tenements indicated.

(ii) MIDC’s firm approval for water supply may be obtained and copy furnished.

(iii) The latest status of the sewerage project (to which the excess treated effluent can bedischarged) proposed to be taken up in the area may be indicated with the expected date for thecompletion of the project.

(iv) The applicable norms for high rise buildings in the area may be indicated showing how thesame compare with those for Mumbai.

(v) Justification for the proposed lifts in terms of NBC norms may be furnished.

(vi) Design of the lightning conductors to be installed may be furnished.

(vii) A detailed note on all aspects of fire fighting measures may be furnished.

(viii) Essential amenities such as a bus terminus for the project area, bus stands close to eachsector, taxi/rickshaw stands, schools, hospital need to be provided. Specific plans in this regardmay be indicated.

(ix) It appears that shops are only in commercial sector; there is a need to have certainminimum such facilites in sectors 2 to 6.

Item No.5

Project proponent: M/s Dharmesh Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Consultant: M/s Enviro Analysts and Engineers Ltd.

Name of the project and location: “Acme Hills” – Residential project under SRA scheme atShri Krishna Nagar, Film City Road, Village Malad, Goregaon (E), Mumbai.


Total plot area: 16,172 sq.m. Proposed FSI area: 48,320 sq.m. Total construction area: 90,108sq.m. Details of buildings: Sale building - 2 wings (4 St + 31 floors) with 380 tenements and 24

shops. Rehabilitation buildings four (G+12 floors) with 806 tenements and four shops. Landscapearea: 2,721 sq.m. Parking spaces proposed: 249 (four wheelers).

Decision: It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearancesubject to compliance of the following:

(i) Taking into account the peculiar topography of the plot, the podia (as part of the proposedstilts) for giving entry into stilt should not extend beyond the building line more than 6m; thetopmost podium may have 8 m width beyond building line for movement of fire engine, as agreed.

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


14

Item No.7

Project proponent: M/s Omkar Realtors & Developers (the name shown in the agenda papersis M/s Omkar Transforming Lifestyle).

Consultant: M/s Green Circle Consultants (India) Pvt Ltd.

Name of the project and location: Proposed Slum Rehabilitation Scheme at Prakashwadi,Village Gundavali, Taluka Andheri, near Cinemax, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E).


Total plot area: 10,848 sq.m. Net plot area: 8,721 sq.m. BUA as per FSI: 21,753 sq.m. Non-FSIarea: 27,001 sq.m. Details of buildings: Rehabilitation building – Two wings (one with 2B+G+7upper floors and another with 2B + G + 6 upper floors). Residential tenements: 186; PAP units –31; and shops – 14. Sale building – one wing (2B+G+8 floors) plus commercial office complex.Landscape area: 724 sq.m. Proposed car parking: 341.

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

(i) Parking should be provided as per norms only and the area of the basement should bereduced accordingly.

(ii) The extremity of the basement to the boundary of the plot should be at least 3m allaround.

(iii) RG area on the ground should be increased by at least 20% as per the availability of openspaces.

(iv) At least 100 trees should be planted in the project premises.

Item No.8

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

Consultant: Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt Ltd.

Name of the project and location: Construction of residential building “Orchid Central”,rehabilitaon building and MCGM parking lot on plot no. 1573 at Byculla Division ‘E’ Ward (known

as Arab Jamal Compound).


Plot area: 6,186 sq.m. Built up area (FSI) – 25,820 sq.m. (6,805 sq.m for rehabilitation andMHADA residential building and 19,015 sq.m. for sale residential building). Non-FSI construction:58,372 sq.m (including 21,164 sq.m for the total podium area for the sale building and 16,444sq.m for the MCGM parking lot). Total construction area of the project: 84,193 sq.m. Details ofbuildings: MCGM parking: Gr+8 podia in the sale building to accommodate 146 car parkings.Sale building: B+9 to 19 podia + St + 62 floors to accommodate 164 tenements. Rehabilitation

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


15

building: Gr + 16 floors – G+first 7 floors to accommodate 80 commercial tenements and 8 to 16floors to accommodate 76 tenements.

Decision: The following observations are communicated to the project proponent forcompliance:

(i) The actual calculation of additional FSI available on account of providing municipal

parking and the resulting cap on FSI may be furnished in accordance with the provisions of theannexure to the GR relating to the Municipal Parking Scheme, based on the location of the plot.

(i) The proposed total construction is almost 14 times the plot size and needs to be reducedsignificantly. The proposed non-FSI construction (including MCGM parking) is over 225% of theFSI construction; excluding MCGM parking, it is still very high at over 160%. This has to bereduced. The proposal to have 19 podia (of which 11 are supposed to be for the use of the salecomponent) is certainly unacceptable. It will not be possible to consider the proposal unlesssubstantial modifications are made in these.

(ii) The number of parking spaces required to be provided may be worked out as per theapproved norms and indicated with the relevant calculations. In any case, the use of 21,164 sq.m

on the 11 podia for providing parking for 164 sale tenements is extremely high, considering thatthe average area to be utilized for this purpose per parking space should be around 25 to 30sq.m. (taking into account driveways and other related aspects). Optimal utilization of the parkingspace will help reduce the number of podia substantially as mentioned at (i) above.

(iii) The use of space in the proposed MCGM parking is also extremely non-optimal. A totalarea of 16,444 sq.m. is supposed to accommodate only 146 cars. This needs to be looked intoseriously.

(iv) Detailed schemes for rainwater harvesting and storm water drainage may be worked outand indicated.

(v) A detailed note on fire fighting may be furnished.

(vi) A note on EMP may be furnished with special emphasis on the maintenance of theamenities for the rehabilitation component.

Item No.8a

Project proponent: M/s SMS Waluj CETP Pvt Ltd.

Consultant: M/s SMS Envocare Ltd., Pune.

Name of the project and location: Setting up common effluent treatment plant (CETP) byIndustrial Association of Waluj Industrial Estate, Aurangabad in association with MaharashtraIndustrial Deveopment Corporation (MIDC).


Total area of MIDC, Waluj: 1563 hectares. Approximate no. of industrial units: 1500. Main typesof industries: engineering, chemical, bulk drugs, breweries and pharmaceuticals. Capacity ofCETP: 10 MLD. Total area of the plot: 1,33,650 sq.m. Built up area: 7,768 sq.m. Proposed

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


16

disposal of effluent and sludge: treated liquid effluent to be disposed at designated pointapproved by MPCB and dried sludge to be sent to Ranjangaon for secured land filling.

Decision: The project proponent is requested to act on the following suggestions and/or furnishclarifications:

(i) The type of treatments provided at sources before the effluent is received in the CETP

and the broad quality of the effluent received may be indicated.

(ii) The quality which will be achieved after treatment at CETP may be indicated in clearterms.

(iii) The monitoring mechanism to ensure certain minimum quality of effluent generated by theunits may be indicated.

(iv) The extent to which treated (at CETP) effluent can be reused for purposes such ascooling, gardening etc may be indicated, stating the expected quantity which can be so used.

(v) It is proposed to release the treated effluent to a stream which will join a river. It is very

important to take effective steps to minimize the pollution of the stream and river. For thispurpose, the project proponent should seriously consider holding the treated effluent for a fewdays in interconnected ponds so as to improve the natural process of clarification.

Item No.8b

Project proponent: M/s Daroda-Jog & Associates


Name of the project and location: Residential project “Green Land County” at Village Narhe,Taluka Haveli, District Pune.


Total plot area: 46,255 sq.m. Net plot area: 32,801 sq.m. Built up area (FSI): 35,308 sq.m. Totalconstruction area: 43,251 sq.m. Details of buildings: 22 buildings (10 with P+7 floors and 12 withP+4 floors). Total number of tenements: 708. Parking area: 13,752 sq.m. Green belt area: 11,076sq.m. No. of trees to be planted: 451.

Decision: This case, earlier closed due to non-attendance of the project proponent on the firstoccasion when they were invited, was reopened. A detailed presentation of the project was

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

Compliance case

Item No.8c (Originally considered in the 29th meeting held in June 2010)

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

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


17

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

Name of the project and location: Proposed Veena Saaz at Kandivali, Mumbai


Plot area: 17,304 sq.m. Gross construction area (without TDR): 19,993 sq.m. (of which 14,831

sq.m under FSI). Gross construction area with TDR: 28,247 sq.m. (of which 17,086 sq.m underFSI). Break up of additional gross construction area: Building no.5: 739 sq.m. Building no. 6:3,108 sq.m. and Parking Building: 4407 sq.m. Parking required as per MCGM norms: 186. Totalparking proposed: 271.

Decision: As decided in the meeting held on 18th June 2010, the Committee carried out a visit tothe plot on 30th June, 2010. The representative of M/s Nikunj Developers (holding power ofattorney of M/s Videocon Properties Ltd.) and representatives of the complainants from buildings1 and 2 were present. A round of the campus was also taken by the Committee.

It was found that the entire plot belonged to M/s Videocon Properties Ltd. who constructed towers A and B (each of 24 stories) earlier. These towers, each with about 90 flats, are occupied since

last 3-4 years and a society of residents exists on each tower. While only about 5 or 6 cars areaccommodated in the ground floor stilts of each tower, about 150 cars belonging to the residentsare parked in the open. The sewage from these two towers is let into a septic tank on the N-Wcorner of the plot. The effluent from the septic tank is discharged into a Nala on the northern sideof the plot. No standby DG set has been provided to the tower A, though one has been providedto tower B for emergency operation of lifts, fire pumps etc. Very few trees exist on the plot. Asmall garden of area less than 1000 sq.m is seen on the entrance and on the eastern portion. M/sNikunj Developers, as PA holder of M/s Videocon Properties Ltd., constructed two additionaltowers numbers 5 and 6. Building no. 5 (stilt + 15 stories) is nearly complete and bulding no. 6(stilt + 9 stories) is also nearing completion. M/s Nikunj Developers, as PA holder of M/sVideocon Properties Ltd., have proposed construction of a separate 4-storied building for parkingof vehicles and a club with a swimming pool.

Based on the observations during the site visit and other relevant issues, the project proponent isrequested to comply with the following:

(i) It is understood that there are some cases in the courts of law against M/s VideoconProperties Ltd. related to this plot. Details of these court cases along with their present statusmay be indicated.

(ii) The layout plan shown on site was incorrect and incomplete as the dimensions ofbuildings shown on the plan do not tally with dimensions on site; the septic tank, water tank,pump house, trees etc. and all water supply and drainage services are not shown. A correctlayout plan may, therefore, be prepared by detailed ground surveys showing existing and

proposed buildings and submitted.

(iii) The provision of open areas and RG areas need to be shown along with dimensionednetwork of internal roads, fire tender movement etc.

(iv) The total parking required and the proposals for parking provisions be detailed on a layoutplan. The parking proposed for towers A and B may be separately shown.

(v) The representative of M/s Nikunj Developers promised on site to provide a common STPfor the entire plot including the sewage from towers A and B and to recirculate the treated effluentto all buildings (including towers A and B) in the interest of water conservation. Details in this

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


18

regard may be worked out and furnished. The present method of discharging the effluent into theNala is not at all acceptable, as it is positively hazardous to environment in a thickly populatedlocality where the plot is located.

(vi) Consent of the societies of towers A and B need to be obtained for the expansion projectand submitted.

(vii) It is seen that certain essential amenities and safety features for the residents of thetowers A and B have not been provided, though these buildings were completed and occupiedsince 2003. These may be provided without any further delay.

(viii) It was stated during the visit that certain DC provisions were relaxed by MCGM in respectof the proposed development. The details of the same may be furnished.

(ix) It was represented that there was severe shortage of water even for towers A and B,necessitating purchase of water from tankers. Some borewells are also dug on the site. Underthese circumstances proposals to meet the additional demand of water for the proposedexpansion need to be furnished. Data on yield from bores, the quality of water, requiredtreatment and permission from GSDA along with water balance statement may be furnished.

(x) Arrangements for storm water drainage, energy conservation, landscaping etc. need to bedetailed.

(xi) Statement of purchase of TDR needs to be submitted with full area statements.

(xii) EMP for the entire project is required with full details.

(xiii) It is found that nearly the entire area in front of the towers A and B is paved and a numberof cars are parked in the area. Most of this area is proposed as RG area in the new layoutsubmitted to the Committee. RG area, meant for recreation, has to have trees, gardens, lawns,play area for children etc. Car parking is not to be allowed in the RG areas. As a result, paving

already done will have to be removed. Clear proposals in this regard may be submitted.

(xiv) The ownership and management of the parking building and the club house will have tobe in accordance with the provisions in the DC rules no. 23 of 1991. Accordingly, the ownershipwill vest on all the resident owners on the plot and suitable provision will have to be made in theconveyance deed.

(xv) In building nos. 5 and 6, use of glass is found to be unduly excessive, such as use ofglass for construction of parapets of galleries. Since these galleries are fully accessible from therespective flats, safety of the dwellers, particularly of children, may be endangered throughaccidental breakage of the glass parapets. Preventive measures in this respect need to beindicated.

Other cases

The case at s.no. 6 (M/s Kutchi Sarvodayanagar) will be taken up later as requested by theproject proponent.

Chairman, SEAC

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


19

Minutes of the 30th meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)held on 3rd July 2010

Present


New Cases

Item No.9

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 Enclave III” –Rehabilitation Building and MCGM Parking Lot on plot bearing CS No. 241, 242 and 243 ofTardeo Division, ‘D’ Ward, Mumbai.

Decision: Before a detailed presentation could be made, it was found that the proposal involvedconstruction of over 1,61,405 sq.m on a plot of effective area slightly over 6,000 sq.m. Thismeant construction of 25 to 26 times of the plot size and as such it would not be possible toconsider the proposal. The project proponent, who was requested to revise the proposal toreduce the total construction drastically, agreed to do so. While doing so, they may also furnishthe actual calculation of additional FSI available on account of providing municipal parking andthe resulting cap on FSI in accordance with the provisions of the annexure to the GR relating tothe Municipal Parking Scheme, based on the location of the plot.

Item No.10

Project proponent: M/s Privilege Power & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

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

Name of the project and location: “HDIL Industrial Park” at Village Chandansar, Taluka Vasai,District Thane.

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


20


Total plot area: 3,23,688 sq.m. Total built up area: 1,83,787 sq.m. Total construction area(including non-FSI area): 2,17,870 sq.m. No. of buildings: 85. No. of galas: 1,416. Average sizeof a gala plot building: 95 sq.m. Average size of an industrial suit building: 390 sq.m. Parkingspaces to be provided: 750 for four wheelers, 3700 for two wheelers and 65 for trucks.

Decision: It was stated that only green industries would be located in the park and an expectedlist of such industries has been furnished. It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant ofprior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent complying with the following:

(i) The actual requirement of water for the canteen may be worked out on the basis of thenumber of seats and the revised statement may be furnished.

(ii) Rainwater harvesting by ponding may be taken up by constructing an artificial lake.

(iii) The ponds for treated excess sewage may be decided rationally so that it will not overflowinto any Nala. Special precautions may be taken for safety while designing and constructing theponds.

(iv) Treated sewage may be used for gardening by pumping.

(v) Storm water from uphill should be collected in catch drains on the border and channeledinto natural streams.

(vi) It may be ensured that the trees proposed to be planted are forest trees.

Item No.11

Project proponent: M/s Lokhndwala-Dynamix Balwas JV

Consultant: M/s Mahabal Enviro Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Name of the project and location: Construction of residential building “Orchid Skyz”,rehabilitation building and MCGM Parling lot on plot bearing survey nos. CTS no. 1/1975, 1968,1969, 1/1969 of Byculla Division, Unity Compound, Bapurao Jagtap Road, Mumbai.


Plot area: 14,131 sq.m. Total FSI area of construction: 56,525 sq.m. Non-FSI area: 81,113 sq.m(including 27,589 sq.m for MCGM parking). Details of buildings (other than MCGM parking):

Rehabilitation – four buildings (two with 3B+St+24 floors; one with 3B+St+30 floors; and one with3B+G+9 floors) with 452 tenements. Sale building: one with G+2P+St+60 floors with 180tenements.

Decision: The project proponent was requested to furnish compliance/clarification in respect ofthe following:

(i) The actual calculation of additional FSI available on account of providing municipalparking and the resulting cap on FSI in accordance with the provisions of the annexure to the GRrelating to the Municipal Parking Scheme, based on the location of the plot, may be furnished.

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


21

(ii) The required area per parking space comes to 37 sq.m. and is on a high side. It may bereduced by about 20%.

(iii) The basis on which the requirement of four lifts was worked out may be furnished basedon the NBC norms; it may also be ensured that one of the lifts is earmarked as fire lift.

(iv) Suitable cut-outs may be provided in the basement for natural ventilation and light.

(v) It may be confirmed that the area proposed as ‘meeting area’ in the MCGM parking areais for approved purposes only.

(vi) In the sale building, access to the fire engines on the north and south sides is notavailable Arrangements may be made either to take the fire engines on the podium or to cutdown the area of the podium to remedy this situation.

(vii) More than 200 trees may be planted on the ground.

(viii) In the EMP there should be a provision for regular monitoring of the air qualitiy in theparking area (both captive and MCGM).

Item No.12

Project proponent: M/s Vinay Unique Construction Company

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

Name of the project and location: “Vinay Unique Nagar” (Residential cum CommercialComplex) at Village Bolinj, Taluka Vasai, District Thane.


Plot area: 75,070 sq.m. Built up area (FSI): 94,910 sq.m. Total construction area: 1,12,264 sq.m.Details of buildings: 17 (G/S +4 or G/S+7 or G/S +11) with 1483 tenements; four row houses(G+1); 3 bungalows (G+1), Club House one and Commercial & Multiplex (B+S+4)Landscapedgreen area: 9,571 sq.m. Parking spaces proposed: 288 for four-wheelers and 2,216 for two-wheelers. Total parking area: 12,383 sq.m.

Decision: The project proponent is requested to clarify the following point:

(i) The project will generate 626 KLD of waste water; it may be indicated how much out ofthe same can be recycled for flushing and gardening. Since the project is located in a village

without a covered sewer and since discharge of surplus treated effluent out of the project area isnot allowed, it may be indicated how the surplus treated effluent will be satisfactorily taken careof, including during monsoon.

Item No.14

Project proponent: M/s Cureworth Drugs & Intermediate Pvt. Ltd. (name shown in the agendapapers is Cureworth Remedies (India), later changed as above).

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


22

Consultant: Enviro Analysts and Engineers Pvt Ltd.

Name of the project and location: Proposed unit to manufacture bulk drugs & intermediateproduct at plot no. N-49, Additional Ambernath MIDC area. Ambernath, Thane.


Plot area: 2,400 sq.m. Monthly production capacity: 15 MT. Water requirement: 20 KLD. Stacks:two with 16m height. RG provided: 800 sq.m.

Decision: The nature of the process and the steps proposed to be taken to minimize anyadverse effect on the environment were explained. It was decided to recommend the proposalfor grant of prior environmental clearance.

Compliance cases

Item No.14a (Originally considered in the 2nd meeting held in July 2008; again considered in the

7th

meeting and recommended for rejection of the request for prior environmental clearance forcommencement of construction without EC; again considered in the 20th meeting, after the casewas referred back by SEIAA as decided in its 11th meeting; further considered in the 29th meeting).

Project proponent: M/s Axay Raj Build Well Pvt Ltd.

Consultant: M/s Enviro Analysts & Engineers Pvt Ltd, Borivali (E), Mumbai.

Name of the project and location: Redevelopment of Ashtavinayak CHS Ltd, DN Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai.


Plot area: 8,392 sq.m. Built-up area (FSI): 24,688 sq.m. Total construction: 64,477 sq.m. No. ofbuildings: six

Decision: As decided in the 29th meeting held on 16th June, the Committee carried out a visit tothe project site on 30th June. After taking a round and discussing with the project proponent, hewas requested to furnish additional information and certain clarifications. He has since furnishedthe same. Specifically,

(i) The project proponent has submitted clear drawings showing the present position of workto-date and the work yet to be taken up in distinct colours.

(ii) A statement showing the BUA and total construction as per old proposal and nowmodified as per SEAC’s remarks has been furnished. Accordingly the ground coverage has beenreduced from 62% to 48% and RG area has been increased from 3,500 sq.m to 4,560 sq.m. Thenon-FSI area has been reduced from 40,097 sq.m. to 31,662 sq.m and consequently the totalconstruction area has been reduced form 64,477 sq.m to 56,041 sq.m.

(iii) On both sides of the proposed building, there are public roads and the shops on theground floor face them. The project proponent has promised to ensure that entry and exit toshoppers’ cars would be controlled through defined gates for entry and exit so that no traffichazards will be created on main road by thus restricting free access along the building.

8/10/2019 30MoM_SEAC


(iv) Steel reinforcement bars will be provided with anticorrosive treatment for durability.

(v) Detailed plans for RG areas on ground and on terrace on top of the commercial area havebeen submitted with the number of trees to be planted.

In view of these changes and commitments, it was decided to recommend the proposal for grant

of prior environmental clearance.

Item No.14b (Considered in the 17th meeting and recommended for grant of EC)

Project proponent: M/s Natural Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd.

Name of the project and location: Expansion of the sugar plant from 2500 TCD to 5000 TCDand expansion of the cogeneration power plant from 9 MW to 22 MW.

Decision: The above case was considered in the 17th meeting and it was decided to recommend

the proposal for grant of prior EC. The matter was considered by SEIAA in its 22nd

meeting, whenthe Authority decided to refer the case back to SEAC to check up as to why the public hearingwas not asked for.

The matter was considered by the Committee. It is noticed that though the combined proposal ofthe project proponent was for expansion of the sugar plant from 2500 TCD to 5000 TCD andexpansion of the cogeneration power plant from 9 MW to 22 MW, the first part is really exemptfrom the requirement of EC (since the capacity does not exceed 5000 TCD). As far as thesecond component, namely expansion of the cogeneration power plant from 9 MW to 22 MW, isconcerned, the Committee decided to categorise the project as B(2), particularly because the fuelto be used was bagasse. (Of course, the category B(2) was not mentioned in the minutes as inother cases. The Committee will, from the next meeting onwards, show the category so as to

avoid such confusion). It was not, therefore, felt necessary to ask for public hearing. (Incidentally,a public hearing was conducted earlier by the project proponent while establishing the distillery intheir premises).

Other cases

The cases at s.nos. 13, 15, 16 and 17 (of M/s Markans Pharma Ltd., Adhiraj Construction Pvt.Ltd., Rohinton Mehta Constructions and Sri Krishna Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) will be taken up insubsequent meetings as requested by the project proponents.

Chairman, SEAC

30MoM_SEAC

Documents

Transcript of 30MoM_SEAC