The city's planning committee has approved a highly contentious rezoning application for a Britannia-area duplex.

Though 61 area residents submitted written objections, 79 signed a petition in opposition and seven appeared before the committee last week to argue against it, members approved the application in a 6-2 vote.

City council must still vote on the issue, which will appear on its agenda next month.

The application was made by David Hill, a resident of the neighbourhood who owns the duplex at 847 Ivanhoe Ave.    Mr. Hill is seeking the rezoning in order to convert the house into a triplex.

City planning staff recommended approval in their report to the committee, which says the conversion will fulfill the city's planning policies favouring urban intensification, without major effects on the neighbourhood.

Residents expressed to the committee their concerns that this additional unit will aggravate existing problems with excessive on-street parking and place additional strains on out-of-date and inadequate local infrastructure.

In his presentation to the committee, area resident Jim Jones suggested that it not only deny Mr. Hill's application, but go a step further and ban intensification on streets which do not meet infrastructure standards.

On Ivanhoe, he asserted, water pressure is just 25 lbs.; well below the city-wide standard of 44 lbs.

Intensification is nothing more than a "tax grab" by the city, he added, which benefits from the market value-based property tax assessment system.

Though he regards himself as being on the opposite end of the political spectrum from local city Coun. Alex Cullen, Mr. Jones said, the pair agree on this particular issue.

"I think this is what we in the political world call consensus."

Jean Wong echoed the infrastructure concerns, saying water pressure in her home and others is such that toilets cannot flush if taps are also running.

"Ivanhoe Avenue, like most streets in this neighbourhood, has not been upgraded to the standards newer communities enjoy," said Henry Sweich, president of the Queensway Terrace North Community Association.    "I find it ironic that the applicant who has recently benefitted from the (existing) zoning and moved into a new single home, now finds this zoning an obstacle to his financial success as an absentee landlord."

Mr. Hill defended city staff's approval, and denied the assertion of several opponents that the community is largely made up of single family homes.

"These planning principles have been around for a long time.    They should not be unexpected in our community."

During a prior public meeting on the issue, held in the community last September and attended by more than 50 residents, no one objecting to his application did so on the basis of planning principles, said Mr. Hill.

His own survey of the area, he added, found three existing triplexes, a five-unit building and 10 duplexes.

"The neighbourhood is far from being a single family neighbourhood."

As for parking concerns, Mr. Hill said there is only one car between the two families currently occupying the duplex, and space on-site for four more.

"My wife and I are part of this neighbourhood," he said.    "We are not only landlords. We are very sensitive to the type of neighbourhood this is."

In addressing his fellow committee members, Coun. Cullen said that, though the rezoning might appear to be a minor change, it is "the straw breaking the camel's back in terms of the community.    They have already sustained a lot of change. When is too many units?    You're hearing from the community that this is."