Supreme Court upholds decision on Cottonwood cul-de-sac as city highway

CONCORD — The state Supreme Court upheld a ruling that the City of Laconia has the right to turn a cul-de-sac into a public highway, denying an appeal by the Taylor Community.

According to court documents, on May 20, lawyers for Taylor Community in Laconia appealed the order of the Supreme Court, and on Aug. 27, the Supreme Court ruled its decision was correct.

“It was definitely a long process, but it doesn’t change much about what we are doing in the city,” City Manager Kirk Beattie said. “We will maintain it like any other street, and it just clarifies our processes we need to go through for things like building permits and setbacks. It is nice to put it behind us and move forward.”

The dispute dates back to the 1980s, when in 1987, the nonprofit presented a subdivision plan to the planning board for a cul-de-sac on Cottonwood Avenue to be built and deeded to the city. While the road feature was built, it was never deeded to the city, which maintained it until 2019.

In 2019, Taylor Community applied to the planning board to remove the cul-de-sac to create a “hammerhead,” which court records describe as a “T-shaped road” at the end of a dead-end street in the Taylor Community neighborhood, for vehicles to turn around. This request was denied by the planning board, and lawyers for Taylor Community appealed the decision to Belknap Superior Court. The court determined the cul-de-sac was never accepted by the city, and it was still a private road owned by the nonprofit.

Court records show there was a petition to make the cul-de-sac a public highway, citing New Hampshire RSA 231:8, which says “town selectmen may, upon petition, lay out public highways when there is ‘occasion’ to do so.” The Laconia City Council voted to make the cul-de-sac a public highway, and this decision was appealed to the Superior Court. Both parties responded with motions for summary judgment about whether there was occasion to lay out a public highway.

The Superior Court granted the city's motion, denying that of Taylor Community. The Superior Court concluded Taylor Community had dedicated the cul-de-sac to the city for public use in 1987, when they drew the cul-de-sac into plans and sold lots. The Superior Court ruled Taylor Community had “no rights” in the cul-de-sac, saying public interest in laying out the highway outweighed the nonprofit’s interest.

Taylor Community moved for reconsideration of the ruling, and the court ultimately concluded Taylor did not have the right to use the property for its own purposes. The court also concluded public interest in laying out a highway outweighed the burden on the city.

These decisions prompted an appeal by Taylor, whose lawyers argued the trial court was incorrect. Court records stated there are three ways a public highway can be created. One is by taking land through eminent domain and laying out a highway with government authority. It can also be created through the construction of a road on public land, or if there has been 20 years of use by the public before 1968.

There are two prongs to analysis by the court. Taylor stated the court was incorrect in the ruling that the nonprofit had no right to use the area.

The Supreme Court noted that dedication and acceptance is another way a public highway can be created. The trial court ruled the cul-de-sac was dedicated, but not accepted. Neither party disputed this ruling, and thus, a public highway was not created. The ruling stated the trial court concluded the unreleased offer of dedication made it so Taylor’s rights to the cul-de-sac had diminished, which caused it to fail the first prong.

It was also found there is a public easement for travel over the cul-de-sac, and the public has the right to accept it without cost. An easement allows the public the right to use the area for travel, and thus a private landowner can retain a fee interest. The court stated Taylor Home had retained ownership of the fee, but could not use the cul-de-sac in a way to interfere with the public’s right to accept it and use it for travel.

The court then touched on the public and private interests in the area, saying, “even a scant public interest outweighed” private, thus concluding the trial court’s ruling was correct.

The court also upheld a decision regarding policy, where the Taylor Community argued the court’s conclusion about private landowner’s rights in dedicated but unaccepted land was not correct.

The Taylor Community argued the trial court was incorrect when applying the second prong, which refers to public interest versus the burden the layout of the cul-de-sac puts on the city. They argued the trial court was wrong when it stated the city will only incur minimal yearly costs to maintain the road, citing evidence of the city’s maintenance of the cul-de-sac between 1987 and 2021.

Taylor argued this ruling was incorrect due to a discrepancy in the date — 2019, not 2021 — and there was no evidence about the maintenance costs. The court stated the date issue was not a reason to reverse the decision, and since the city maintained the cul-de-sac for 32 years, it shows there is a cost to the city.

Taylor also felt the court was incorrect about the cul-de-sac providing the most “safe and efficient traffic route” for emergency vehicles and other city vehicles to the 30 residents living on Cottonwood. However, this was also concluded by the trial court to be correct after further review.

Taylor Board President David Pearlman said the decision was “not a big deal either way,” and it simply created a definitive ruling of law.

“We will always defend our rights as anyone would, but it isn’t a landmark decision where we are spending a lot of resources,” Pearlman said. “We’re talking about a little corner of the property. It isn’t a major decision that will change anything we are doing here.”