ER-3 <br />1 <br />Opinion by Ryan. <br />2 NATURE OF THE DECISION <br />3 Petitioners appeal a decision approving a tentative planned unit <br />4 development application. <br />5 MOTION TO FIMRVENE <br />6 In an order dated May 1, 2014, we previously granted intervenor- <br />7 respondent Oakleigh Meadows' (Meadows) motion to intervene on the side of <br />8 the city, intervenor-petitioner Paul Conte's (Conte's) motion to intervene on <br />9 the side of petitioners Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors et al (Neighbors), and <br />10 intervenor-petitioner Simon Trautman's (Trautman's) motion to intervene on <br />11 the side of Neighbors. Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene, - Or <br />12 LUBA - (LUBA No. 2014-001, Order, May 1, 2014). In its response brief, <br />13 Meadows renews its previous objection to Trautman's motion to intervene, <br />14 arguing that Trautman's motion to intervene was not timely filed under ORS <br />15 197.830(7), which requires that "[w]ithin 21 days after a notice of intent to <br />16 appeal [NITA] has been filed with [LUBA]" a person who appeared before the <br />17 local government may file a motion to intervene in the appeal. ORS <br />18 197.830(7)(c) provides that failure to file a motion to intervene with LUBA <br />19 within 21 days after the NITA is filed "shall result in denial of the motion to <br />20 intervene." <br />21 Neighbors filed their NITA on January 3, 2014. Under ORS 197.830(7)31 <br />22 the deadline for intervention in the appeal expired on January 24, 2014. <br />23 Trautman filed his motion to intervene on March 11, 2014, 68 days after the <br />24 VITA was filed. As we explained in our May 1 order, as required by OAR <br />25 661-010-0015(2) and (3)(f)(D), on January 3, 2014, Neighbors served copies of <br />26 the VITA. on "[a]ny * person to whom written notice of the land use <br />Page 3 <br />000052 <br />