Analyzing the Conflicts of Floor Area Incentive based on the Legal Perspectives : The Case Study of Nankang Tire Site.

• Main Authors: Shih-Chun Lin, 林士鈞
• Other Authors: Ching-Huei Wu
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2012
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/19249047969197860957

碩士 === 中國文化大學 === 巿政暨環境規劃學系 === 100 === In view of the history of urban development and evolution, we can realize that there are so many complex problems in urban, therefore, using urban plan to regulate and guide the development of the city is necessary. Our current urban plan contains master plan and detailed plan. In order to maintain functions of urban, we use zoning as a tool to norms for the location, type and intensity of land use. In addition to the zoning, urban planning should also include urban renewal, so the city can continue to develop, redevelop , rather than decline. Controversial in 2010, Nankang tire case, is caused because of the floor area incentive. In October 2009, Nankang tires case in accordance with the Urban Planning Act, to apply the changes to industrial zone for a particular precinct. Total maximum floor area ratio in the master plan was 390%, included floor area incentive. However, the developers expected to increase the maximum floor area ratio up to 449% with urban renewal strategic development areas. Therefore, about an additional $ 2.7 billion profit, and thus caused considerable controversy. It seems to contradict between Urban Renewal Act and Urban Planning Act, because urban renewal regulation is special law. Furthermore, based on the interpretation of the Ministry of the Interior Construction and Planning Agency, if the floor area incentive that based on the Urban Renewal Act and other relevant laws exceeds the upper limit of the master plan, can still apply to the competent authorities in accordance with the law to apply. Resulting the floor area incentive is not subject to the limits of the Urban Planning Act. But urban renewal should be part of the urban planning, urban planning is the most upper guiding principles of urban development, but now the Urban Renewal Act sui generis, even above the top of the urban planning, that's the conflict between Urban Renewal Act and Urban Planning Act. With the point of view of the planning system and the legal system, this study aims to explore the competition between the floor area incentive policy and urban planning, and analysis the rationality and fairness of the floor area incentive. After that, using depth interviews to develop the topic and propose a solution. This study found that urban planning due to the decree level, cannot limit the maximum floor area incentive given by urban renewal. However, urban planning should guide urban's development, but in the current floor area incentive system, urban planning can not control the floor area incentive.Sometimes age-old urban planning may not be consistent with today's social environment requires, therefore, this study proposes : should re-evaluate the base floor area ratio standards, set floor area limit, revise the Urban Renewal Act, improving floor area incentive given standard and The authority shall adjust its mindset on the floor area incentive.