ER-7 <br />1 Neighbors does not respond to Meadows' challenge to the three named <br />2 petitioners, which presents a novel and complex issue regarding the meaning of <br />3 the ORS 197.825(2) requirement that a petitioner must exhaust available <br />4 administrative remedies. However, we conclude that we need not resolve that <br />5 challenge. The petitioners whom Meadows challenges filed the same NITA as <br />6 Neighbors and multiple other petitioners, all of whom filed the same petition <br />7 for review and are represented by the same attorney. There is no indication that <br />8 the challenged petitioners are presenting issues that are different from any of <br />9 the other petitioners joining in the NITA and the appeal. Accordingly, <br />10 resolving the issue would lengthen an already lengthy opinion and would have <br />11 no bearing on our jurisdiction over. the appeal, or the merits of the appeal, since <br />12 there is no question that the other petitioners appeared before the planning <br />13 commission. For those reasons, we decline to dismiss petitioners Tammy <br />14 Crofton, Karen Fleener-Gould and Scott Fleener-Gould. <br />15 REPLY BRIEFS <br />16 Neighbors and Conte each move for permission to file a. reply brief to <br />17 respond to new matters raised in the response briefs. The reply briefs are <br />18 allowed. <br />19 FACTS <br />20 Meadows applied for tentative planned unit development (PUD) <br />21 approval for a 29-unit residential development on 2.3 acres of land zoned low <br />22 density residential (R-1). The only access to the subject property is via <br />23 Oakleigh Lane, an east/west street that runs from its western intersection with <br />24 River Road approximately 850 feet to the subject property. The subject <br />i` Page 7 <br />00.®056 <br />