I don't think the City is doing anyone any favours with how they're handling the question of changes that fall somewhere between what the Committee has typically dealt with and a full new re-zoning (though I acknowledge that certain councillors have put Planning Staff in a bind with how they've politicked around this subject).
Developers don't like the Committee because it's something a crapshoot (and TLAB an even bigger one), and no one -- including the City -- has elucidated what does and does not constitute "minor" (the "four tests" are of course always open to interpretation). Some Councillors don't like the Committee because they don't have as much influence over it as they do Community Planning; other councillors appreciate that they can point to the Committee as a quasi-OLT bogeyman to say "nothing I could do" if they didn't like the decision rendered.
OTR, City Staff have mused about a desire to formalize a "quick rezoning" process for these sorts of changes (forgive or substantially decrease application fees; whittle down the list of submission requirements to just what is directly necessary to capture the details of the proposed changes; get a little creative with statutory notice periods; direct reviewing departments not to operate on a business-as-usual review/comment loop; etc.), but those musings haven't turned into much as yet.
Market conditions (and the PMTSA enactments) are going to mean that this trend of these types of applications only accelerates, so the City ought to inject some clarity into the process.
I agree with adding some clarity. Any such action will invariably involve a somewhat arbitrary line, but I like percentages, be it height, unit count, floor plate or GFA. We can probably all agree that a change less than 10% is minor. The question then is when does it become major? If we can agree that turning a 40s building into 60s is not 'minor'. (it may be supportable, but it would be wrong to call it minor), you get a curious problem. What we just agreed on (if we did) it that a 50% increase is not minor, but that would capture going from 2s, to 3s.
With that observation, I note the challenge in framing a really simple rule. A further challenge is context. An area in the midst of transition from SFH to Midrise (lets say 12s) might be a logical spot where varying from say, 6s to 9s should be seen as something entirely appropriate to C of A. (though its 50% more height).
But the same low-rise community with the same 6s approval in place where that is and was a new all-time high precedent, and where there is no other transition planned might make such a move major.
So with that said, I'm curious as to anyone's thoughts on how to write a clear rule set.
Flexibility does have its desirable side too.
I like the idea of trusting a good Planner to do their job and use their discretion. Just as I would feel the same about a grocery store manager. But in the latter case, chains have generally moved to centralize all decision making and leave manager's little discretion even if that hurts sales because they like the uniformity and predictability. It assuages the fear of 'What if the manager does something stupid'?
We can write a set of rules that are clear, and remove discretion from Planners. This will create consistency but remove flexibility. Its an interesting challenge to fine a balance that works for everyone.
