lb <br />disrupt the proceedings. Nothing could be further from what occurred here. <br />Mr. Trautman filed his Motion to Intervene within 21 days of receiving the <br />Notice of Intent to Appeal. No brief had been filed, nor had any mediation <br />occurred. Allowing intervention in this case would be fully consistent with the <br />legislative intent as shown by the legislative history of ORS 197.830(7)(c). <br />At the end of the day, Mr. Trautman filed his Motion to Intervene within <br />21 days of first receiving notice that an appeal had been filed in this matter. To <br />deny him his right to participate in this appeal would not be consistent with the <br />context of ORS 197.830(7)(c) nor the "sound principles of judicial review" <br />governing the review of land use decisions. To affirm LUBA's decision would <br />allow a LUBA appellant to prevent the participation of anyone else by simply <br />not serving the NITA on the other parties who participated in the local <br />proceeding. It is not consistent with those "sound principles" to allow a party to <br />benefit from its own failures. Such a result is absurd and statutes should not be <br />construed to ascribe a legislative intent to produce unreasonable or absurd <br />results. Bell v. Tri-Met, 353 Or 535, 301 P3d 901 (2013) ("This court has long <br />recognized the prudential value of not construing legislative enactments `so as <br />to ascribe to the legislature the intent to produce what we perceive to be an <br />unreasonable result."' Baldwin, dissenting, quoting McKean-Coffman v. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />