The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a Superior Court ruling Tuesday in *Taylor Community v. City of Laconia*, concluding that the City of Laconia had proper authority to designate a disputed cul-de-sac as a public highway. The decision represents a victory for municipal authority in land use disputes and clarifies the circumstances under which cities may exercise their highway layout powers.
The case, argued before the state's highest court in May 2025, arose from a decades-old development dispute involving a cul-de-sac constructed by Taylor Community in the late 1980s. According to court records, Taylor Community had made representations to the Laconia Planning Board on a 1987 subdivision plan indicating that the cul-de-sac would be built and subsequently deeded to the city.
The legal dispute reached the Superior Court, where Judge Attorri denied Taylor Community's cross-motion for summary judgment while granting summary judgment to intervenors Matthew J. Lahey and Nancy Ettelson. Taylor Community appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding there was proper occasion for the City of Laconia and its Mayor and City Council to lay out the disputed roadway as a public highway.
Chief Justice MacDonald, writing for the Supreme Court, rejected Taylor Community's arguments and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court's analysis focused on whether the city had met the legal requirements necessary to establish the cul-de-sac as a public highway under New Hampshire law.
The case involved multiple parties with varying interests in the outcome. Taylor Community was represented by attorneys from Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green PA of Manchester, with Megan C. Carrier and Christopher Cole handling the legal arguments. The City of Laconia and its officials were represented by Laura Spector-Morgan from Mitchell Municipal Group, P.A. of Laconia.
Notably, the case also featured intervenors who played a crucial role in the litigation. Matthew J. Lahey of Laconia represented himself as a party to the proceedings, while Stephan T. Nix of Gilford represented intervenor Nancy Ettelson. These intervenors filed the successful cross-motion for summary judgment that ultimately prevailed in both the trial court and on appeal.
The timeline of the case reflects the complex nature of land use litigation. The original development occurred in the late 1980s when Taylor Community constructed the cul-de-sac and made commitments to the city regarding its future ownership. However, the legal dispute over the roadway's status did not reach the courts until decades later, culminating in the 2024 filing that led to the Supreme Court decision issued in August 2025.
The Supreme Court's decision has implications for municipal authority in New Hampshire. By affirming the city's power to lay out the cul-de-sac as a public highway, the court reinforced the ability of local governments to exercise their highway layout powers when appropriate legal standards are met. This authority is particularly important in cases where private developers have made commitments regarding road dedication but later disputes arise over implementation.
The case also highlights the role that intervenors can play in municipal law disputes. The fact that private parties successfully intervened and obtained summary judgment demonstrates how individual citizens can participate meaningfully in litigation that affects community infrastructure and development.
For municipalities throughout New Hampshire, the decision provides guidance on the circumstances under which highway layout authority may be properly exercised. The court's affirmation of the lower court ruling suggests that cities have significant discretion in these matters when the legal prerequisites are satisfied.
The opinion, designated as 2025 N.H. 38, remains subject to potential motions for rehearing under Rule 22 of the New Hampshire Rules of Court. As is standard practice, the court noted that the opinion may undergo formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports, the state's official reporter of supreme court decisions.
Taylor Community's unsuccessful appeal underscores the challenges that developers may face when attempting to challenge municipal highway layout decisions. The case demonstrates that courts will carefully examine whether cities have proper authority to exercise these powers, but will generally defer to municipal judgment when legal standards are met.
The resolution of this long-running dispute provides clarity for the Laconia community regarding the status of the cul-de-sac. With the Supreme Court's affirmation, the roadway's designation as a public highway appears settled, ending years of uncertainty about its legal status.
For legal practitioners in New Hampshire, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear documentation in development agreements and the potential for long-term consequences when commitments regarding road dedication are not properly implemented. The decades-long gap between the original development and the final court resolution illustrates how land use disputes can persist and eventually require judicial intervention to achieve finality.