The problem with "shall approve" is that sometimes the best answer really is "no".
A lot of ecological disasters are averted by processes that seem long and drawn out, but which actually are just companies not understanding that "no, we don't want you to burn down the planet around us". Residential is obviously somewhat different, but not entirely.
The environmental cost of saying "no" to denser housing on land that is already developed is extremely high, and leads to development on green fields where there is nobody to oppose the development.
There should be an automatic "yes" to any mixed use housing and small retail development that is infill, from an environmental perspective.
There should be an automatic "no" to any greenfield development, additional parking, or freeways. And to get over that "no" there should be strong environmental studies that show benefit, not just neutrality.
Our existing built environment is unsustainable and needs to change drastically. Keeping it in the current state is untenable. We should be radically reshaping it as fast as possible with the fewest brakes if we care about the environment.
"Ecological disasters" is covered by putting in objective instead of subjective rules. The point is to make objections like "doesn't fit neighborhood character" / "blocks the view" / "would replace this extremely historic run-down laundromat" hold no weight in the process.
A lot of ecological disasters are averted by processes that seem long and drawn out, but which actually are just companies not understanding that "no, we don't want you to burn down the planet around us". Residential is obviously somewhat different, but not entirely.