A nice development, in the wrong spot.

That's the message city politicians heard at a long, at times emotional, planning and environment committee meeting Tuesday night at Wolf Performance Hall, moved to the library site to accommodate the nearly 200 residents that attended the debate.

"It is not appropriate, it does not fit in the area," said Stan Brown, president of the Stoneybrook Heights-Uplands residents association.

"Looking at this, it feels like anyone with common sense . . . respect for the community will oppose this."

The impassioned pleas from representatives of opponents in a long, some times heated marathon meeting that lasted nearly eight hours did not sway politicians, who voted to approve the recommendation.

"Nothing in our planning documents support rejection," said Coun. Stephen Turner.

Coun. Jesse Helmer added that he lives in a mixed-use neighbourhood with diverse housing, "and it's great. Is a four-storey compatible with single family? I say it is."

Coun. Maureen Cassidy, however, the ward councillor, did ask why the project was presented as a four-storey project when "bonusing" provisions could see it grow to six-storey, essentially high density, adding that infill is not "carte blanche" for this apartment.

"There is conflict when retrofit developments happen," she said.

She asked for referral back to staff to find "some kind of common ground," and seconded by Mayor Matt Brown. That was defeated.

Developer Iyman Meddoui has proposed a four-storey, 142-unit apartment building at 420 Fanshawe Park Rd. E., former site of the home of Bill and Nancy Poole whose home was demolished in 2015.

City staff support the development, but city politicians heard a long, detailed and well organized opposition from united neighbours that picked apart the apartment plan.

"Our interest is not in blocking development but it has to be the right development in the right location," said Brown.

"This is not nimbyism, it is responsibility. We are not opposed to development, or infill. We want responsible, appropriate development."

The meeting also heard from Nancy Poole, who told the committee she sold the home thinking it would become a family home, and did not want it sold to a developer.

"I am here to support my neighbours," she said. "I still feel very much part of the neighbourhood."

Her brief statement was met with a rousing ovation from those in attendance. She also asked what happened to a totem pole she had in the yard, fearing it was cut down and destroyed.

City staff reported the totem was rotting and was removed.

The meeting grew heated at one point, with an angry Coun. Tanya Park, meeting chairperson, ejecting a woman for repeatedly speaking out from her seat.

Another woman wept at the microphone, saying she has lived in the area for 18 years and while she does not oppose infill, "not at the magnitude of a four-storey" building.

Carol Wiebe, a planner representing the builder, told the meeting the apartment would offer an opportunity for residents to remain when they leave their home, and infill is encouraged under the London Plan, the city's blueprint for growth.

"It is a sustainable, compact form of development," said Wiebe. "It is important to recognize under the existing Official Plan and low-density residential designation. It does contemplate a range of uses, singles, and semis and low-rise developments," she said.

The lawyer for Meddoui also spoke out saying single-family homes and apartment could exist "in harmony," and it is the politicians' "duty" to offer infill housing in the area.

Shauna Roch, also a member of the residents' association, dismissed suggestions the development could see area residents stay there. There is now a lot of high-density projects nearby, at Sunningdale and Richmond and North Centre Road, to name a few.

"There is lots of opportunity in our neighbourhood if we want to stay there," she said.

Bruce Curtis,a professional planner with 33 years experience, 13 with the city, also spoke out against the development, saying it violates fundamentals of sound planning.

"This is not about NIMBY (not in my backyard) or opposing development or intensification, it is about good community planning," said Curtis.

He pointed to single-family homes surrounding the site as evidence it is not appropriate, and the high water table makes a major development a challenge.

"To introduce medium-density with bonusing, which means really high density, is completely inappropriate," he said.

At one point he called the staff recommendation the zoning change and development be approved as "a charade," as it would make for a mix of densities that would not work.

"This is an example of inappropriate, indiscriminate mix of housing and density," said Curtis.

The matter goes to city council next week.

--- --- ---

Summary of neighbours' concerns

-- Density

-- Lack of integration into existing neighbourhood

-- Shadow effects

-- Loss of privacy and trees

-- Traffic concerns and safety

-- Inadequate parking

-- Lack of community involvement in planning process