美國都市計劃法制에 관한 硏究 : Zoning과 Master Plan을 中心으로 = (A) study on the urban planning law in the United States : Focused on Zoning and Master Plan|RISS 상세보기

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

(1) In the highly urbanized contemporary industrial society, a diversity of politics, including formation, maintenance, preservation, development, adjustment in the urban area, and the relevant law systems are developed, which is commonly noted by any country. Though this phenomenon has accompanied with the expansion of the economic growth in today's cities, this process for them is far from dependent upon its own capital growth by virtue of the market theory in practical. In addition, with a certain aim suggested in terms of the public and society in the contents and usage of the urban space formed thereby, the political and legal intervention is indispensable in its conscious control. This is true of cities in our country. In particular, the brief and marked economic growth in Korea has led to a lot of problems in the relevant law, and in practical, different from the advanced countries whose industrialization and urbanization have been done in a long time. Hereby, in this study, the United States is sam pled because of the necessity of studying and examining the urban planning law in the advanced countries.
(2) The system of the urban planning law in the United States includes the master plan within the constitution of the State and the statute from the top of the Federal Constitution, and the land use regulation system (zoning, subdivision control, official mapping, etc.), which is crossed in the vertical direction, and the expanding structure of zoning, subdivision control, official mapping centered on master plan in the horizontal direction. That is, the master plan as in the urban planning of the United States, has the characteristic of the constitution and provides guidelines to all land use regulations by pointing to the direction. This systematic urban planning law began to be formed after the end of 1960s, combined with the contemporary urban planning in the United States, slow and steady. In the early 20C, when the history of the urban planning nearly emerged in the United States, zoning, a kind of regulation system made the core of the urban planning. Especially, even as the model Act, the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act concerning zoning enhanced by the Federal Government in 1924 is marked 「……shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan」in its relation with master plan. However, in 1928,‘master plan’took the place of comprehensive plan in the Standard Planning Enabling Act, and regulated the decision of master plan as in itself, which brought about the long argument centered around the interpretation of consistency requirement in the relation between zoning and master plan. In addition, it is common that zoning ordinance existed in the practical modern urban planning of the United States instead of master plan. So to speak, the modern urban planning features the prominence of master plan in zoning. In this regard, the Court separated zoning from master plan, and decided the satisfaction of consistency requirement depending upon whether its ordinance was comprehensive.
On the other hand, in 1926, the United States Supreme Court declared zoning to be constitutional at Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., and it was introduced rapidly throughout the country. Then, zoning was generally formed cumulative zoning, disputed at the Euclid judgment, which specializes in protecting the owners housing area and the pre-confirmative regulations. This Euclidian Zoning became the model in the United States later then. However, at the end of 1960s, meantime, the rapid development in the suburbs caused the phenomenon of sprawl, and scarcity of public facilities, diminished open space, the environmental preservation in nature and history, etc. were elevated to surface. So, the recent pursuit of growth became followed by the necessity of growth management. With this regard, various methods such as cluster zoning, PUD, floating zoning, incentive zoning, TDR, etc. to which flexibility was added out of the zoning descriptive of rigidity in the type of zoning. This Non-Euclidian Zoning requ ired the master plan for the comprehensive management of the urban land use. In addition, as the growth management policy started in order after the late 1970s, the basis got to derive from master plan. Hereby, I'll say that master plan cemented the position as the constitution of land use regulations. That is, one major streamline is that the present urban planning in the United States seeks the consistency based on master plan.
(3) So far, we have covered the relevant system and cases along with the whole streamline centered on zoning and master plan within the great frame of the urban planning law in the United States. From this examination, the features of the urban planning law in this country can be summarized as follows; 1) the existence of strong master plan independent of the regulations and businesses, 2) the existence of detailed and strong regulations focused on zoning 3) the preparation of various methods beyond uniformity in the pre-confirmative regulations; zoning, and its basis is found in master plan 4) the frequent use of discretion. As for the measure, in the sense of procedure, the system given centered on the public hearing is made up to work 5) the legislature in charge of deciding the planning and the regulations, the executive in which the planning and the regulation, the executive in which the planning and the regulations are put into practice, and the judicature section which sets up the specific standards of the urban planning by virtue of judgment, where respective independent of the three branches of government produces the principle of mutual control and balance.
(4) The deregulation and the growth management which the United States shows us cannot be inconsistency in its glanced picture, but merely two complementary sides in a system; the fair procedure is required in a part of the strict regulations, and the various methods whose regulations are changeable are prepared. In a word, it can be considered the land use planning and regulations, which is detailed, strict and flexible. On the contrary, the urban planning in Korea is slow and rigid.
As for the difference between Korea and the United States, in case of the latter, the procedure of permit is done through the relation of ordinance in the historical procedure surrounding zoning, the statue, and the local government, and centered on the public hearing. Our problems are responsible for this matter. After all, our urban planning has been exercised a form to confine the land ownership by government as our history indicates, while the urban planning in the United States has minimized the negative sides of industrialization and urbanization, and accepted increasingly the principle of mutual adjustment in the ownership to establish the prosperous living conditions. Furthermore, our urban planning law was introduced at the dawn of industrialization and urbanization. In this point, its background is different from the modern urban planning in the United States. The executive action on the basis and dependence of the central government has been taken for granted instead of deciding and managing the principle of regulations adjusted by the local government on the whole.
(5) In the end, the difference between Korea and the United States lies in their own democratic creeds; the urban planning system between both countries shows a notable discrimination. But, This Amendment Urban Planning Act admits the value of self-regulation and decentralization of power, transfers the statuary urban planning and decision right to a local autonomous entity, takes the flexible and exceptional special permit system on the basis of the principle of zoning which features the confirmation in advance, and regulates the consistency requirements for the master plan in the statuary urban planning, practicing the systematic urban planning, things like this, which means our new step into the contemporary urban planning; in this, we should not end up keeping our eyes open to the urban planning system in the United States, in spite of her different cultural and social background. To conclude, through our positive survey and study of the urban planning law system in the United States, we should analyze her success and faults seriously into good references to the urban planning in our country.

번역하기

목차 (Table of Contents)

第1章序論 = 1
第1節硏究의 目的 = 1
第2節硏究의 範圍및 方法 = 4
第2章美國都市計劃法의 基本體系에 관한 一般論 = 7
第1節都市計劃法의 基本構造 = 7

第1章序論 = 1
第1節硏究의 目的 = 1
第2節硏究의 範圍및 方法 = 4
第2章美國都市計劃法의 基本體系에 관한 一般論 = 7
第1節都市計劃法의 基本構造 = 7
I. 序論的接近方法論 = 7
II. 都市計劃法의 構成 = 8
1. 垂直方向의 重疊 = 8
2. 水平方向의 擴散 = 9
3. 垂直·水平方向의 關係 = 12
III. 都市計劃의 主體로서 三段階의 政府構造 = 12
1. 聯邦政府·州政府 = 12
(1) 聯邦政府 = 12
(2) 州政府 = 13
2. 地方政府 = 14
(1) 地方政府의 構造와 特徵 = 14
(2) 自治團體 = 16
IV. 自治團體의 三權分立 = 16
1. 自治團體의 機構와 三權 = 16
2. 立法的·準司法的·行政的決定 = 18
3. 住民發案(initiative)과 住民投票(referendum) = 19
第2節都市計劃實現方法의 中心으로서 Zoning과 Master Plan의 槪要 = 21
I. 序說 = 21
II. Zoning의 歷史的展開와 現代的變容 = 22
1. Zoning의 意義 = 22
2. Zoning의 淵源과 그 成立背景 = 23
(1) Zoning의 淵源 = 23
(2) Zoning의 成立背景 = 24
3. Zoning의 原型- Euclid Zoning = 26
(1) Euclid 判決 = 27
(2) Euclid Zoning의 普及 = 32
(3) Euclid 方式Zoning의 特徵과 問題點 = 33
4. Zoning의 現代的變容(非Euclid Zoning) = 35
(1) 非Euclid Zoning의 意義 = 35
(2) 非Euclid Zoning의 登場背景 = 36
(3) 非Euclid Zoning의 諸形態 = 38
(4) 非Euclid Zoning의 特徵 = 45
III. Master Plan의 槪要 = 47
1. Master Plan의 意義 = 47
2. Master Plan의 淵源 = 48
3. Master Plan의 內容과 機能 = 50
4. 最近의 動向 = 51
第3節標準州Zoning授權法(SZEA) = 52
I. 序說 = 52
II. 地方自治團體에 대한 Zoning權의 委任 = 53
1. Police Power와 Zoning權 = 53
2. Police Power의 目的擴大/ Zoning權의 擴大 = 53
3. Zoning權限의 委任方法/ 授權法(enabling act)과 自治憲章(home rule charter) = 56
III. Zoning의 基本原則- 均一性(uniformity) = 58
1. 平等確保의 問題 = 59
2. 局地的Zoning(spot zoning)의 問題 = 60
IV. Master Plan과 Zoning - 合致要件(consistency requirement) = 61
V. Zoning의 目的 = 62
VI. Zoning의 規制內容 = 64
1. Zoning의 規制對象 = 64
2. Zoning 規制의 實例 = 65
VII. Zoning의 決定및 修正과 變更 = 71
1. Zoning의 決定및 修正 = 71
2. Zoning의 變更 = 74
(1) 適用除外(variance) = 75
(2) 特別例外(special exception) = 75
3. Zoning의 決定修正및 變更과 公聽會 = 76
(1) 立法的決定과 公聽會 = 77
(2) 準司法的決定과 公聽會 = 78
VIII. 申請許可및 不服申請 = 79
1. 申請과 許可 = 79
2. 不服申請(appeal) = 80
IX. Zoning 調整委員會의 決定에 대한 司法的救濟 = 81
X. Zoning의 執行및 違反에 대한 罰則 = 82
第4節標準都市計劃授權法(SPEA) = 84
I. 序說 = 84
II. Master Plan의 主體/ 計劃委員會 = 85
1. 計劃委員會 = 85
(1) Master Plan의 決定主體 = 85
(2) 構成및 委員의 資格 = 85
(3) 委員會의 權限과 義務및 機能 = 86
(4) 委員會의 運營 = 88
2. 委員會와 議會와의 關係 = 89
3. 委員會의 地位에 대한 批判 = 92
III. Master Plan의 目的 = 93
IV. Master Plan의 決定 = 95
1. Master Plan 決定의 性格/ Zoning과의 合致性要否 = 95
2. Master Plan의 決定節次 = 96
V. Master Plan의 內容 = 97
1. Master Plan 內容選定의 方向/ 要素性의 方向 = 97
2. Master Plan의 一般的要素(內容) = 98
3. Master Plan의 構成要素로서 Zoning의 要素性與否 = 101
VI. Master Plan의 施行및 管理와 公共事業 = 102
第5節 Zoning과 Master Plan의 關係및 그 位置變化 = 105
I. 序說 = 105
II. Zoning의 普及과 都市計劃界의 現實 = 106
1. Zoning의 普及 = 106
2. 都市計劃界의 現實 = 106
III. 標準授權2法에서의 Zoning과 Master Plan = 107
1. 標準授權法上의 兩者의 關係 = 107
(1) 標準授權法上의 規定 = 107
(2) 垂直的合致性과 水平的合致性 = 108
(3) 現實反映으로서 標準授權2法 = 109
2. 標準授權法上의 要素性과 合致性및 目的手段說의 立場 = 109
(1) 合致性 = 109
(2) 要素性 = 110
3. Zoning의 早期成立理由와 그 優位性및 目的手段說의 抵抗 = 111
(1) Zoning의 早期成立理由 = 111
(2) Zoning의 優位性과 目的手段說의 抵抗 = 111
IV. 小結- 目的手段說의 役割과 業績 = 113
1. Zoning의 成立과 受容 = 113
2. Zoning制에 대한 目的手段論者의 批判 = 114
3. Master plan의 制度化 = 115
4. Master plan의 受容 = 115
第3章 Zoning에 대한 法理檢討와 모델事例 = 117
第1節 Zoning의 法的問題에 관한 檢討 = 117
I. 序說/ 問題의 所在 = 117
II. Zoning에 관한 司法審査基準 = 119
1. Police Power와 두 가지 審査基準 = 119
(1) 一般的福祉基準(general welfare test) = 119
(2) 合理性基準(reasonableness test) = 121
2. 裁量濫用基準(abuse of discretion test) = 121
3. Zoning의 法的性質 = 123
III. 排他的Zoning(exclusionary zoning)의 法的問題點 = 125
1. 排他的Zoning의 意義와 態樣 = 125
(1) 排他的Zoning의 意義 = 125
(2) 排他的Zoning의 諸形態 = 126
2. 排他的Zoning과 憲法上의 問題點 = 127
(1) 序 = 127
(2) 排他的Zoning과 人種에 의한 差別 = 127
(3) 排他的Zoning과 低所得者에 대한 差別 = 133
(4) 小結 = 143
3. 圈域的配慮(regional considerations)와 原告適格(standing)의 問題 = 144
(1) 圈域的配慮의 問題 = 144
(2) Zoning과 原告適格問題 = 146
IV. Zoning과 住民參與問題 = 150
1. Zoning에 대한 住民參與制度의 導入 = 150
2. Zoning과 Initiative = 151
(1) 州法院의 判例傾向 = 152
(2) Initiative 導入에 따른 自治와 差別의 限界및 調和 = 153
3. Zoning과 Referendum = 154
(1) 聯邦大法院의 先例判例/ 直接民主制와 土地所有權의 對立 = 154
(2) Eastlake 判決 = 155
(3) 州法院의 判決 = 157
4. 小結- 住民參與制度의 課題 = 158
V. 土地利用規制와 損失補償要否의 基準 = 159
1. 序/ Police Power와 規制에 의한 收用 = 159
2. 損失補償要否의 判斷基準 = 161
(1) 物理的侵害基準(physical invasion test) = 162
(2) 有害利用基準(noxious use test) = 163
(3) 經濟價値減少基準(economic diminution in value test) = 164
(4) 利益衡量基準(balancing test) = 165
3. 새로운 傾向 = 166
(1) Lucas 判決 = 166
(2) Dolan 判決 = 167
4. 小結 = 169
第2節 New York 市의 Zoning = 170
I. 序說/ 都市의 Zoning = 170
II. 法的構造 = 170
1. 憲章 = 171
2. Zoning 條例 = 173
III. 1961年全面改正Zoning의 內容과 그 特徵 = 174
1. 用途規制 = 175
2. 容積率規制의 導入 = 175
3. 住居系地區의 形態規制 = 176
4. 商業系地區/ 工業系地區의 形態規制 = 178
5. Incentive Zoning = 179
IV. 1961年以後의 Zoning 變容狀況 = 180
1. 「open space 속의 tower」 에 대한 「反動」- 1960年代 = 180
2. 特別地區制度의 始作- 1960年代末1970年代初 = 182
(1) 特別劇場地區(Special Theater District) = 182
(2) 初期의 特別地區 = 183
3. 展開되는 特別地區- 1970年代 = 185
(1) 特別地區의 擴大와 그 問題點 = 185
(2) 廣場보너스의 基準强化와 變質 = 187
4. 特別Midtown地區- 1980年代初 = 188
5. Contextual Zoning - 1980年代後半 = 190
(1) Housing Quality Program = 190
(2) Contextual Zoning = 191
V. 「事前確定的인 規制」와 「裁量的인 規制」 = 192
1. 裁量權濫用(abuse of discretion)의 問題/ Columbus Center 判決 = 193
2. 裁量判斷의 必要性과 重要性 = 194
VI. Plan과 標準土地利用審査節次(ULURP) = 196
1. Plan - 「197-a Plan」 = 196
2. 標準土地利用審査節次(ULURP) = 198
3. 議會와 市長에 의한 審査 = 201
VII. Zoning 圖面과 本文의 修正 = 201
第4章 Master Plan의 法理展開와 모델事例 = 203
第1節 Master Plan의 法理展開 = 203
I. 序說 = 203
II. 1970年代以前의 狀況 = 205
1. 改革의 方向과 司法判斷의 類型 = 205
2. 獨立된 Master Plan의 必要性要否 = 206
(1) 獨立된 Master Plan은 必要없다 - Kozesnik判決 = 206
(2) 獨立된 Master Plan이 必要하다 - Eves判決 = 208
III. 制定法과 判例法의 變化 = 211
1. 變化의 背景 = 211
2. 制定法의 變化動向 = 213
3. Master Plan에 대한 判例法의 態度變化 = 215
(1) 成長管理規制는 Master Plan을 根據로 認定된다 - Ramapo判決 = 215
(2) Master Plan에 合致하지 않는 Zoning 改定은 無效- Fasano判決 = 217
(3) Master Plan 改定에는 嚴格한 節次가 必要- Dalton判決 = 220
IV. 效果的인 Master Plan에 대한 摸索 = 223
1. 實例- Honolulu市의 General Plan = 223
2. Master Plan에 대한 批判과 그 改善方向 = 225
3. Master Plan에 관한 새로운 試圖- 1980年代以後 = 228
(1) Vermont州 = 229
(2) Oregon州 = 230
(3) Florida州 = 232
(4) 小結 = 234
第2節 California州法에서의 General Plan = 235
I. 序說 = 235
II. General Plan의 性格 = 236
1. General Plan의 基本的인 性格- 土地利用의 憲法 = 236
(1) 土地利用의 憲法 = 236
(2) San Francisco의 Master Plan과 proposition M = 237
(3) 法的效果/ 土地利用에 관한 憲法의 意味 = 239
(4) 公共事業과 General Plan = 240
2. General Plan의 其他性格 = 241
(1) 立法行爲이다 = 241
(2) 綜合的이다 = 241
(3) 長期的이다 = 242
(4) 方針의 聲明이다 = 243
III. General Plan의 構成要素(內容)와 內部的合致性 = 243
1. 義務的인 構成要素(內容) = 243
2. 選擇的인 構成要素(內容) = 245
3. 內部的合致性(internal consistency) = 246
IV. General Plan의 決定節次 = 247
1. 市民參與 = 247
2. 決定의 法的節次 = 247
V. General Plan 變更에 관한 制限 = 248
VI. General Plan에 대한 訴訟 = 249
第5章 우리나라와 미국 都市計劃法制의 比較檢討와 提言 = 251
I. 都市計劃의 法體系 = 251
1. 都市計劃法體系의 特徵 = 251
2. 都市計劃의 定義 = 253
3. 都市計劃의 實施手段 = 254
II. 都市計劃의 適用範圍 = 255
1. 都市計劃의 適用對象地域과 土地利用管理의 方式 = 255
2. 土地利用規制·計劃에 대한 體系差異의 原因 = 256
3. 土地및 都市計劃에 대한 認識 = 257
III. 都市計劃의 決定主體 = 258
1. 都市計劃의 決定主體와 範圍 = 258
2. 都市計劃에 있어서 地方分權制度의 長短點 = 259
3. 都市計劃權限의 所在와 委任 = 260
IV. 用途地域制와 形態制限 = 261
1. Zoning에 있어서 用途및 形態規制의 方式 = 261
2. 彈力的인 Zoning 制度의 必要性 = 263
3. Zoning 規制의 限界와 成長管理政策 = 264
V. 都市計劃의 決定節次 = 265
1. 都市計劃決定節次의 比較 = 265
2. 都市計劃決定에 있어서 住民參與 = 266
(1) 住民參與의 意味 = 266
(2) 決定過程과 公聽會 = 267
(3) 其他의 住民參與制度 = 269
VI. 都市計劃決定과 個別行爲에 대한 不服方法 = 270
VII. Master Plan의 役割과 그 重要性 = 272
1. 미국의 Master Plan의 役割과 우리나라 都市基本計劃의 問題點 = 272
2. 都市基本計劃과 法定都市計劃의 不一致 = 275
VIII. 都市計劃에 대한 政治介入問題 = 276
第6章結論 = 279
參考文獻 = 283
ABSTRACT = 294

상세검색

RISS 보유자료

상세검색

해외전자자료