ER-6 <br />1 Luttig v. City of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 909, 910 (2000). To the extent <br />2 Mountain West Investment recognizes an exception to the statutory deadline for <br />3 intervention for a party who is the applicant of record and is not served with a <br />4 copy of the NITA as required by ORS 197.830(9) and LUBA's rules, and <br />5 consequently files its motion beyond the 21-day deadline in ORS <br />6 197.830(7)(c), Mountain West Investment provides no basis for us to grant <br />7 Trautman's late-filed motion to intervene. <br />8 Trautman's motion to intervene is denied.2 <br />9 STANDING <br />10 Meadows argues that petitioners Tammy Crofton, Karen Fleener-Gould <br />11 and Scott Fleener-Gould lack standing to appeal the challenged decision to <br />12 LUBA, because they participated only during the proceedings before 'the <br />13 hearings officer, and failed to participate in the proceedings on the appeal of <br />14 the hearings officer's decision before the planning commission. According to <br />15 <br />Meadows, <br />their failure to participate in the local <br />appeal means that those. <br />16 <br />petitioners <br />failed to "exhaust" their administrative <br />remedies <br />as required by <br />17 ORS 197.825(2).3 <br />2 Because we deny Trautman's motion to intervene, we do not consider his <br />petition for review, Meadow's response brief in response to his petition for <br />review, the reply brief, or Meadows accompanying motion to take evidence and <br />the response to it. <br />3 ORS 197.825(2) provides in relevant part: <br />"(2) The jurisdiction of the board: <br />"(a) Is limited to those cases in which the petitioner has <br />exhausted all remedies available by right before <br />petitioning the board for review[.]" <br />Page 6 <br />000055 <br />