美麗灣渡假村爭議

Abstract

(1)目的: 就美麗灣渡假村爭議土地台東縣卑南鄉加路蘭段346及346-4地號是否合法開發作為探討，詳述此土地開發案之案例事實，從初期德安開發向台東縣政府提出杉原海水浴場投資案到後來的環保團體認為此舉有規避環評之意圖衍生的上訴。本組以雙方之立場來探究此案，論其土地開發必要性、環境影響評估之必要性及其是否有瑕疵。

(2)過程及方法: 先就其案例事實做足充分研究及探討，並依高雄高等行政法院96年度訴字第647號判決、高雄高等行政法院102年度訴字第481號判決和最高行政法院99年度判字403號判決……等等判決，研究其詳細之案例事實與適用的法條，看是否具開發必要性和環境影響評估是否有瑕疵。

(3)結果: 針對此項土地開發案，本組針對整理出的3項爭點提出看法。一、論杉原海岸開發必要性，其環境帶來的衝擊大於經濟效益，因此認為沒有在此開發的必要性。二、開發面積應以整體承租面積做為計算，而非僅指實際開發面積，因此根據開發行為應實施環境影響評估細目及範圍認定標準第31條第13款第5目規定，應當進行環境影響評估。三、台東縣政府為目的事業主管機關，其派出之當然委員及機關代表共3人，應迴避表決，因此依臺東縣政府環境影響評估審查委員會組織規程第7條第1項規定，環評審查結論有程序上的瑕疵。

(1) Purpose： We talk about details of the Land Development of the Beautiful Bay Resort, from the initial development of Dean to the Taitung County Government, the Sumitomo Beach Investment Case was filed and the subsequent environmental protection group considered that the move had an appeal to evade the intention of the environmental impact assessment. We explored the case from the standpoint of both parties on the necessity of land development, the necessity of environmental impact assessment and whether it is flawed.

(2) Process and Methods： According to the judgment of Kaohsiung High Administrative Court 96th v. No. 647, the Kaohsiung Higher Administrative Court 102nd v. No. 481 and the Supreme Administrative Court's 99th judgment 403 judgment, etc., research case facts and law to see if there is a need for development and whether the environmental impact assessment is flawed or not.

(3) Results： We put forward opinions on the three disputes. First, on the necessity of the development of Sugihara coast, the impact brought by its environment is greater than the economic benefits, so it is considered that there is no need for development here. Second, the development area should be calculated based on the overall rented area, not just the actual development area. Therefore, according to the development behavior, the environmental impact assessment should be implemented. Last, The Taitung County Government is the competent authority for the purpose of the business. The three members of the ex officio members and the organs of the government shall evade the voting. Therefore, there is a procedural flaw.