Supreme Court Backs Residents Over Developer in Laconia Cul-de-Sac Dispute

In an unusual twist, homeowners invoked New Hampshire’s highway layout process to stymie a real estate developer. The residents accomplished this feat by relying on the developer’s own 1987 dedication of a cul-de-sac as a public road, or “highway.”  Taylor Community v. City of Laconia, 2025 N.H. 38.

The 1987 Dedication

In 1987, Taylor Community prepared a subdivision plan showing a cul-de-sac.  Taylor also represented to the Laconia Planning Board it would build the road and deed it to the city. Taylor sold lots shown on the plan, and the cul-de-sac was built, but Taylor never conveyed it. The city nevertheless maintained the cul-de-sac for decades, and residents and public services used it continually.

Residents Petition the City Council

In 2019, Taylor sought planning board approval to replace the cul-de-sac with a hammerhead. The board denied the request. On appeal, the superior court ruled the cul-de-sac had never been accepted by the city and remained a private road owned by Taylor. Soon afterward, neighborhood residents petitioned the Laconia City Council under RSA 231:8 (the highway layout process) to lay out the cul-de-sac as a public highway. The Council voted in favor, prompting Taylor’s appeal to the superior court.

Superior Court Proceedings

The superior court granted judgment to the residents. The court arrived at its decision after deploying New Hampshire’s two-prong test to determine whether “occasion” existed to lay out a highway.

·  The first prong balances the public interest in the highway against the landowner’s private rights. The court found Taylor had dedicated the cul-de-sac in 1987 by showing it on a subdivision plan and selling lots in accordance with the plan.  The court also ruled the dedication had never been released.  Although Taylor retained title “underneath” the dedicated highway (the cul-de-sac), the court concluded Taylor’s rights were so greatly diminished by the outstanding dedication that even a “scant” public interest outweighed Taylor’s private property rights.

·  Under the second prong, the court determined the burden on the municipality would be minimal, given the city’s prior, long history of maintaining the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac also provided the most safe and efficient traffic route for emergency vehicles and certain residents.

Supreme Court Decision and Reasoning

The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s ruling.

·  Dedication vs. acceptance. Although dedication alone does not create a highway, it does vest the public with an easement for travel and a continuing right of acceptance until formally released.

·  Diminished private rights. While Taylor retained title to the cul-de-sac, it could not use it in ways inconsistent with public travel. In balancing public and private rights (the first prong), the Court agreed Taylor’s interest was so limited that even a modest public interest outweighed it.

·  Minimal burden on the city. For the second prong, the record showed the cul-de-sac was small, historically maintained, and critical for emergency access to dozens of residents. These factors demonstrated the burden on the city was minimal compared to the public’s need for the highway.

Key Takeaway

Once land has been dedicated as a highway by being shown on a plan and lots are sold in accordance with the plan, the dedication cannot be undone easily. Developers and landowners should be mindful of this restriction and the effect on future development.

For assistance with roads, real estate or civil litigation, please contact Alfano Law at (603) 856-8411 or by filling out our Contact Form. The firm offers free or low-cost initial consultations for most matters.