By Karen Klinger

It was last fall when the battle was joined between developers and abutters over the future of bucolic Shady Hill Square in Cambridge's Agassiz neighborhood and it seems unlikely that anything will be settled before this summer, at the earliest.

In the meantime, the abutters can look out on an expanse of green free of any signs that a 5,000-square-foot building might go up in the middle of the park-like setting around which their homes are clustered.

In April, the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal decided to continue a hearing on aspects of a building permit held by Stonehouse Holdings to put up what neighbors deride as a "McMansion" on the horseshoe-shaped square that has served as a common yard for a dozen semi-detached stucco houses since they were built in 1915.

For now, Stonehouse is prohibited from doing anything on the site by a "stop work" order issued last October by city building commissioner Ranjit Singanayagam after the abutters raised questions about the ownership of the property and the developers' legal access to it. He told Stonehouse's attorneys in February that he was not lifting the order until matters had been resolved.

Among the issues before the court is the abutters' contention that the developers had not completed the purchase of the property when they obtained the building permit, as the city requires. The abutters also are arguing that there is an "implied easement" prohibiting construction on the square, in accordance with architect John Ames's original vision for the property.

Ames was an adherent of the Garden City movement, an urban living idea popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that aimed to foster a sense of community and preserve open space by clustering dwellings around a common green area. Preservationists have called Shady Hill Square a well-preserved example of the concept and the Cambridge Historical Commission is studying whether it should be given landmark status.

The issues before the BZA involved allegations of various zoning code violations, but board member Gus Alexander said that depending on the land court's ruling, anything he and his colleagues decided could be rendered moot. "It's in a sense out of our hands. The court could supercede us," he said.

Stonehouse's attorneys protested that by waiting for the land court to act, the BZA was being unfair to their clients, who paid $850,000 for Shady Hill Square and already have architectural plans for the house they want to build. Said lawyer Thomas Harrington, "This fight, I think, has a long way to go, but we need to start making progress."

Nonetheless, the majority of BZA members agreed with Alexander, who said that by waiting for the land court to act, "We'll know better where we stand as to whether we have a case to decide or not."