Appeals court hears abuse-of-process and zoning dispute over Pease Cottage relocation

The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument Wednesday in 2024P267, Lynn Allegart v. members of the Edgartown Zoning Board of Appeals and Harborview Owner LLC, over an appeal from denial of an anti‑SLAPP (abuse‑of‑process) motion and related counterclaims tied to a dispute about screening and the relocation of a structure called the Pease Cottage.

The case arises from Allegart’s zoning appeal and other challenges she has filed over several years against the Harborview’s development steps. At oral argument, Dan Larkosh, counsel for Allegart, told the panel that “this is an appeal from the denial of a slap suit motion to dismiss,” and said the record shows his client’s petitioning activity is protected and that prior rulings supported the viability of her earlier claims.

The appeal centers on whether the Harborview carried its burden to show Allegart’s petitioning activity “is devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law,” a standard Larkosh described as the proper test once petitioning activity is established. Larkosh argued the principal, strongest claim is the zoning appeal seeking protection of screening and privacy, and he said the complaint alleges the removal and inadequate replacement of screening and the relocation of the Pease Cottage, which his client says now gives balconies a clearer view of her property.

Kevin O’Flaherty, representing Harborview Owner LLC, countered that Allegart lacks standing for the zoning claim and that zoning does not protect a generalized privacy interest. O’Flaherty told the court that “privacy … is not protected under zoning” and said the Pease Cottage “complies in every respect with zoning” and is not too tall or too large. He also emphasized procedural posture: Harborview filed counterclaims in answer to preserve abuse‑of‑process and related claims while pursuing discovery and summary judgment in the trial court.

The parties disputed whether the trial court properly took a holistic view of filings and supporting affidavits in resolving the anti‑SLAPP motion and whether the counterclaims were properly dismissed under the governing anti‑SLAPP standards. Counsel debated applicability of appellate precedents the parties cited, including decisions identified in the record as Hidalgo and Bristol, and whether a trial court may evaluate affidavits and documentary evidence in deciding an anti‑SLAPP motion in this posture.

The justices questioned whether Harborview’s counterclaims targeted only Allegart’s zoning appeal or were aimed at a broader pattern of litigation, and they pressed counsel on the legal standards governing standing, the sufficiency of allegations in each of the complaint’s counts, and the appropriate timing for bringing abuse‑of‑process claims. The court’s decision will resolve whether the trial court erred in denying dismissal of the counterclaims and whether Allegart’s petitioning activity is protected as a matter of law.

The argument concluded after presentations by both sides; the court did not announce a ruling from the bench.

Background details from the record cited at argument: Allegart supported earlier incarnations of the Pease Cottage approvals in 2008 and 2018, the record includes photographs and letters discussing screening, and parties dispute whether a landscaping plan required by earlier decisions was implemented. The complaint alleges removal of mature screening and replacement with younger arborvitae, and that relocation of the cottage opened a sight line to Allegart’s house.