Court of Appeals Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

182 Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene that understanding is consistent with other relevant con- text, as well as the legislative history of the statute's enact- ment. Finally, petitioners argue that "[t]o affirm LUBA's decision would allow a LUBA appellant to prevent the par- ticipation of anyone else by simply not serving the NITA on the other parties who participated in the local proceeding," an "absurd" result that is "contrary to sound principles of judicial review." For its part, applicant responds that "LUBA does not err- by applying an unambiguous provision of law in accordance with the plain meaning of its text." According to applicant, ORS 197.830(7) "makes clear that the deadline for filing a Motion to Intervene runs from the date the Notice of Intent to Appeal is `filed with the board' and not from the date of service of the Notice of Intent to Appeal on any par- ties," as petitioners assert. (Quoting ORS 197.830(7); bold- face in applicant's brief.) In its view, ORS 197.830(7)(a) and (c) "establish a 21-day period for filing a motion to intervene that runs from the filing of the notice of intent to appeal, and impose a jurisdictional consequence for filing after the deadline"-denial of the motion. Applicant also contends that the legislative history of the enactment of ORS 197.830(7)(c) supports its reading of the statute. Further, according to applicant, the policy concerns raised by petitioners are merely speculative, because "other petitioners were respon- sible for serving Intervenor-Petitioner Trautman, and not his adversaries," and, in any event, "it is not appropriate to weigh any policy considerations where, as here, the lan- guage of the statute is clear in its material respects." We agree with petitioners' construction of the stat- ute. ORS 197.830(7)(a) provides: "Within 21 days after a notice of intent to appeal has been filed with the board under subsection (1) of this sec- tion,1101 any person described in paragraph (b) of this sub- section may intervene in and be made a party to the review 9 We reject without discussion applicant's contention that petitioners did not preserve this assignment of error. As was the case before LUBA, the city takes no position on the issue raised by this assignment of error. 10 Subsection (1) of ORS 197.830 provides that "[r] eview of land use decisions or limited land use decisions under ORS 197.830 to 197.845 shall be commenced by filing a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals."