The future of a disputed Copper Ridge-area apartment property that has pitted a suburban community against its developer continues to hang in limbo.

Carrying on an acrimonious two-year legal battle Monday, lawyers for homeowners in the Falcon Ridge subdivision and Whitehorse developer Brian Little faced off in Yukon Supreme Court.

They sparred over whether to go ahead with one of two fresh proposals for the property from Little, or reject them as incongruous with neighbourhood character and the subdivision's founding documents.

"Neither of the proposals capture the spirit ... contained in the 2005 site plan,” said James Tucker, who represents the condominium corporation, consisting of the area's homeowners.

Tucker requested that both proposals, ordered by Justice Ron Veale earlier this year, be denied.

Both options would likely see the foundation of the "half-decrepit,” cube-like apartment complex remain intact, with the rest of its three storeys torn down and replaced by at least one 12-unit building and up to 16 other units on the lot.

"We need to get this development done,” said Little's lawyer, Meagan Lang.

She characterized the 12-unit structure as "three contiguous four-plexes,” strung together by a possible interior hallway and shared roofing, but with a dozen individual entrances as well.

Lang insisted none of the residents explicitly said the proposed "four-plexes” — with cookie-cutter roof lines and balconies conforming to homes already built — were inconsistent with the 2005 site plan.

The original declaration and plan include only detached houses, duplexes and rowhouses.

Veale ruled in January that a combination of four-plex and single-family units could take the place of the apartment block, in accordance with the community that residents thought they were buying into based on the 2005 plan.

He said "it would be unjust and inequitable to the majority of unit owners that oppose the condo developer's proposal to allow it to proceed with the construction” of the building.

Tucker took exception with Lang's suggestion that 75 per cent of the community agreed with Little's second proposal — three connected four-plexes, three standalone four-plexes and one house, adding up to 25 units.

While five to seven homeowners seemed to favour that option, according to responses emailed to the condo board, the fact that another 50 per cent of owners did not respond does not amount to tacit approval, he said.

"Silence should be taken as silence. It should not be taken as agreement, as the developer would argue,” Tucker told the court.

He said of the 28 owners who did respond, 21 to 23 rejected both proposed options.

Tucker also accused Little of slippery "word-smithing” in labelling a 12-unit building as three connected four-plexes.

"They are not four-plexes. If the suffix ‘plex' is to be used, it is to be called a 12-plex,” he said. "It's 12 units in a building.

"We've been bandying about terminology here ... what you have before you in proposals A and B are stacked apartment units,” which the judge determined in his January ruling were not acceptable.

Lang said the connected four-plexes were fully consistent with the original site plan.

The "apartment-buildings-in-disguise characterization ... really reduces this issue to a single feature,” she said. "It's not appropriate to get tied up in a battle of definitions.

"The direction wasn't to go out and poll the owners and develop what they think a four-plex is,” she added.

Tucker also argued against the proposed increase of 64 above-ground parking spaces and reduction in green space and sidewalk bump-outs compared with the 2005 plan.

He demanded common elements like play areas for children, paving and a retaining wall be completed by Sept. 30.

Lang said that "it is not possible to please every owner.”

She pointed out that at the last court hearing, affidavits from owners complained about a lack of parking; now complaints around too much parking have emerged.

The "new issue” of playgrounds and community space, meanwhile, demonstrates again how the homeowners "shift the baseline” continuously, Lang said.

Nonetheless, she said that the baseline of the original site plan is not relevant when it comes to the number of parking spaces: "It's not appropriate to go that route anymore.”

Addressing parking and green space in too much detail is "getting into the weeds,” Lang said.

The hearing was slated to continue this afternoon at 1 p.m.

The judge said he would hand down a decision Friday.

In July 2012, Little began construction of the partially completed complex — and has since sunk more than $1 million into the project — despite not having the required consent from nearby condo owners concerned about property values and "community cohesion.”

The squat, four-storey — as originally blueprinted — structure would have the effect of "destroying the character of the development that unit owners found to be so attractive in the first place,” Veale said in January.

Expressing concerns over higher density and community cohesion, one homeowner also told the court last year the structure is "half-decrepit” and an "eyesore.”

The condo owners found restitution last month when the judge also ordered Little to fork over nearly $400,000 in unpaid condo fees.

In a ruling that resolved the bulk of the acrimonious housing dispute and offered lessons for homeowners and developers alike, Veale said the Falcon Ridge condo corporation was entitled to $394,000 — plus some legal costs — because Little failed to pay his share for units his company owned.