So I'm actually of the opposite thinking of this I don't know much about the c of a but if a project sells out at a quick rate and there is the possibility through foundation loads to add more height and more units I think this should be done the foundation of any project is always the most expensive so the more units you split that up between in thinking the more affordable I would be
Here's the thing:
1) A building approval should, in theory, occur for several reasons, one is that it represents sound planning.
2) In support of the above there are a host of studies that get considered looking at the impact of a building on area traffic, on water, on sewer, on local schools, and also, things like shadows, and wind come into play.
3) When you change the height of a building, you naturally change its shadow impact, but you also change a host of other things. You change the wind speed created by the building, you change the amount of storm water runoff, you change the number of students that may affect local schools, you change the loading needs of the building, the demand for parking and a slew of other things.
IF a developer has a foundation engineered to support, lets pick a number, 40 floors, but then accepts an approval at 30 floors, for some of the reasons noted above, after having worked with the area councillor and community stakeholders and then goes back on their word weeks or months after the deal to seek 40s after all, that feels like a betrayal, and a breach of trust. It also begs the question of whether all those impacts were weighted based on a 40s design, or a 30s one.
****
The C of A was never meant to be used this way.
It was meant to address truly minor adjustments. In general, stuff like:
a) adjustments to single-family homes, getting an addition, and the as-built addition is slightly out of line with the approved zoning, by 1ft.
b) a change in parking requirements based on the type of retail uses in a storefront
c) or possibly a 1 storey addition to an existing bunaglow or something of that scale.
Historically, major developments rarely came through C of A at all.
If they did though, it was to deal with a few parking spots being under-sized, or a request to change the exact composition of the units (ie. more or fewer two-bedroom units) or things of that nature.
It was never meant to make 'substantive' adjustments to recently approved or under construction major buildings.
We may be able to reasonably discuss whether a change of one storey, on a 30 storey building is 'minor'.......... and fair game.......I would argue that it could be, but may not be, because you never know, without re-studying everything whether certain things push a community into a negative condition in one or more respects.
I think it would be incumbent on any developer to show that nature and impact of any change is minor.
Now that said, once we start getting to 4,5 and more storey add-ons.....I would argue the prima facie case is that the change is not minor.
That doesn't mean the deal/zoning can't be changed, only that the developer should have to resubmit their zoning and site plan through the normal processes, and Council and the Community should get a say.
www.toronto.ca
