11 <br />c<* * * * * <br />"(c) Failure to comply with the deadline or to pay the filing fee set <br />forth in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall result in denial of a <br />motion to intervene." <br />Initially, LUBA allowed Trautman's Motion to Intervene based on its <br />decision in Mountain West Investment Corp. v. City of Silverton, 38 Or LUBA <br />932, 934 (2000). In particular, LUBA held that: <br />"Trautman's late filing of the motion to intervene was attributable <br />to the petitioners' failure, through no fault of their own, to initially <br />serve a copy of the [Notice of Intent to Appeal] on `[a]ny other <br />person to whom written notice of the decision was mailed as <br />shown on the governing body's records."' LUBA Rec p 786. <br />Notwithstanding its initial decision to grant the Motion to Intervene, <br />LUBA reconsidered the motion in its Final Opinion and Order and noted that, <br />regardless of the inequity of the result, LUBA was required to "strictly adhere <br />to deadlines imposed by statute." ER p 5. LUBA expressly noted that <br />Mountain West as recognized an "exception to the statutory deadline," ER p 6, <br />but distinguished that case because, in Mountain West, the unserved party was <br />the applicant for the permit at issue. Id. In any event, LUBA denied the <br />Motion to Intervene and did not consider Trautman's procedural issue. <br />LUBA's decision was the result of an incorrect interpretation of that statute and <br />is inconsistent with the policy governing LUBA review of land use decisions. <br />As this decision involves the interpretation of a statute, the Court's task is <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />