Court of Appeals Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Cite as 269 Or App 176 (2015) 181 However, after applicant renewed its objection to Trautman's motion to intervene in its response brief, LUBA reconsidered its decision and, in its final order, denied Trautman's motion. LUBA found that "Trautman's late filing of his motion to intervene undoubtedly occurred because the city failed to initially mail notice of the deci- sion to all persons who participated orally or in writing during the proceedings, and thus provided inaccurate and incomplete information to Neighbors about who should be served with a copy of the NITA under OAR 661-010- 0015(3)(f)(D)." Nevertheless, LUBA concluded that ORS 197.830(7)(c) required it to deny Trautman's late-filed motion. As to Mountain West Investment Corp., on which it had earlier relied, LUBA appeared to reason that, "[t]o the extent Mountain West Investment recognizes an exception to the statutory deadline for intervention," that exception is limited to a party who is the "applicant of record." Petitioners now seek judicial review of LUBA's final order, first assigning error to LUBA's denial of the motion to intervene." Petitioners challenge LUBA's construction of ORS 197.830(7), contending that it is "unlawful in sub- stance." ORS 197.850(9)(a). We agree and, accordingly, reverse and remand. Petitioners argue that LUBA incorrectly inter- preted ORS 197.830(7) and that its ruling "is inconsistent with the policy governing LUBA review of land use deci- sions." In particular, they contend that the 21-day period for filing a motion to intervene under ORS 197.830(7) is trig- gered by a notice of intent to appeal under ORS 197.830(1) that is properly filed. And, petitioners assert, under OAR 661-010-0015(2), a properly filed notice of intent to appeal requires service of the notice on all parties who participated in the proceeding before the local government. Thus, it fol- lows, in petitioners view, that, "[b] ecause the Notice of Intent to Appeal was not properly served on Mr. Trautman[] until February 20, 2014, the deadline for the motion to intervene was not triggered until that date." They further argue that e In its final order, LUBA largely affirmed the city, remanding on one assign- ment of error only; in their second and third assignments of error here, petition- ers renew several of the assignments of error that were rejected by LUBA. As noted, we do not reach those assignments.