Shortly after moving into their new Mt. Airy home, Hillary Wood and her partner Kiera Topping received a demolition notice for a property behind them on West Mt. Pleasant Avenue.

Wood learned from neighbors that the proposed development at 309-321 West Mt. Pleasant Ave. planned to use what she described as a shared private driveway opening onto Durham Street. The driveway belongs to four single-family homes along it.

The neighbors organized and issued a "cease and desist" letter to the developer, HP Mount Pleasant Realty, LLC, claiming the driveway as private property and denying access. In response, neighbors say, the developer sued them, demanding access.

"If you look at the historical maps when their deed was created, our driveway didn't even exist, so there's no physical way that their deed and easement could have applied to them," Topping told the Local.

The driveway runs behind the proposed development, with Wood’s home on the other side of it. The current plan has no parking access on West Mt. Pleasant Avenue; however, there are curb cuts on that side of the property, according to Topping. 

"This has been confirmed in court under oath by their architect that they could actually have parking access from Mount Pleasant, so they don't technically need access from the back," Wood said. "If they somehow win the lawsuit, they want to put in, I think, 22 parking spaces."

In the lawsuit, the developer sought a preliminary injunction for immediate driveway use – something Wood assumes is needed during demolition and construction.

Wood and Josephine Winter, executive director of West Mt. Airy Neighbors (WMAN), identified Mike Schutz as their main contact with HP Mount Pleasant Realty, LLC. The Local contacted the developer's lawyer for comment but received no response by press time.

When the judge denied the developer's injunction request, the developer appealed. Wood now worries the lawsuit may outlast their time and resources to fight it.

"Our stance is that this lawsuit really isn't about need or necessity or emergency; it's just to try and push us to our brink and wring us dry financially," Wood said.

The construction is by right, conforming to current CMX2 zoning, and doesn't require community approval.

The project plans a 62,193-square-foot, five-story mixed-use apartment building on a block of mostly single-family homes across from Mt. Airy Taproom. The ground floor would have commercial space facing West Mt. Pleasant Avenue, a street Wood describes as having minimal parking.

"I counted only 20 parking spaces on that block the other day," Wood said. "During weekdays, parking is hard to find. On weekends it clears out a little, but I foresee it being quite an issue."

The upper levels would contain 66 units, the maximum allowed by zoning. Current plans shown at a public Civic Design Review (CDR) meeting on Sept. 4 include no parking spaces.

At the meeting, attended by 82 people, neighbors raised concerns about the project's size, density, and lack of parking, among other issues.

"Our board architects called it a maxed-out design, squeezing as many units as possible onto that footprint," Winter said. "Some architects asked, 'Does this building feel out of proportion to the block?'"

The project gets a height bonus for including low-income units, allowing it to exceed current zoning height limits. Surrounding property owners worry the building will block sunlight.

Neighbors also criticized the proposed facade, feeling it clashed with the neighborhood's historic character.

"It's just fiber cement board, super ugly, super low cost, with no consideration for the historic designs in the neighborhood," Topping said.

Residents on West Durham Street expressed concern that a proposed roof deck would overlook their yards. At the meeting, Schultz said he would consider moving the deck to the other side of the building.

"I hope we can have honest and productive conversations with the developer, his team, and the architects to address neighbors' concerns," Winter said. "Things like repositioning the roof deck or adding setbacks on the rear might go a long way in showing responsiveness to community concerns."

The lawsuit involving the neighbors is under appeal. The developer initially sought a preliminary injunction for driveway use, which the judge denied.

"The lawsuit has two parts: first, a preliminary injunction for immediate access, presumably for demolition and construction; second, the actual trial for long-term legal access," Wood explained. "We spent two days in court, and the judge found they didn't meet a single criterion for a preliminary injunction."

Wood, Topping, and the neighbors expected a court date this fall for the long-term decision, but the appeal on the preliminary injunction pushes that back.

"They're hoping we run out of money and just drop the suit and let them use our driveway," Topping said.