Opinion ID: 1043793
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Injunction Directed at State

Text: ¶ 15. Count II of plaintiff's complaint requested an injunction directed at the Transportation Board requiring it to consider plaintiff's application on the merits. At trial, the Agency and the Board filed a motion to dismiss this portion of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). They argued that plaintiff impermissibly filed his complaint for an original action in lieu of taking a direct appeal from the Board's decision to dismiss his application as administratively incomplete. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss ruling that plaintiff's failure to avail himself of a direct appeal pursuant to Rule 75 foreclosed an original action on this subject. ¶ 16. As noted above, the statute which delineates the procedure for petitioning the Board for approval of a landing site is 5 V.S.A. § 207. The statute provides that: Whenever the board makes an order granting or denying a certificate of approval of an airport, or restricted landing area, [or] approval to use or operate an airport or restricted landing area . . . an aggrieved person may have the decision reviewed on the record by the superior court pursuant to Rule 74 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 V.S.A. § 207(d) (emphasis added). The Board has not considered plaintiff's application at all, let alone ma[de] an order which plaintiff is bound to appeal directly. When plaintiff attempted to have his application considered by the Board, the Agency refused to forward the application. Plaintiff's only contact with the Board has been indirectly through its Secretary when he purported to refuse a Board hearing on plaintiff's petition for his declaratory ruling. The Board has never made any decision or response to plaintiff's application on the merits because the application has never been forwarded by the Agency. There is no Board decision to appeal, and thus plaintiff is entitled to review by a superior court under Rule 74. ¶ 17. In sum, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the Town on plaintiff's claim for an injunction directed at the Town requiring it to grant approval of his proposed helipad and to admit that it lacked authority to withhold approval. We reverse the grant of summary judgment for the Board and the Agency on the portion of plaintiff's complaint seeking review of the Board Secretary's refusal of his petition for declaratory ruling and remand for consideration on this issue. We reverse and remand the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the Board and the Agency on the portion of plaintiff's complaint seeking an injunction directed at the Board requiring it to consider plaintiff's petition on the merits. The trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's claim for an injunction against the Town is affirmed. The trial court's grants of summary judgment on plaintiff's remaining claims are reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.