2 <br />6. Questions Presented on Appeal. <br />Intervenor-Respondent rejects the "Questions Presented on Appeal" <br />because the same are unclear, and fail to conform to requirement in ORAP <br />5.40(6) that the questions be general and contain no argument. <br />Intervenor-Respondent offers the following alternative questions on appeal: <br />1. Did LUBA err in denying an intervenor's Motion to Intervene under <br />ORS 197.830(7)(c) when the same was filed more than 21 days after <br />the filing of Notice of Intent to Appeal? <br />2. Did LUBA err in affirming the local government's approval of a PUD <br />for compliance with the transportation and health and safety criteria <br />where there was no evidence that the PUD would cause any adverse <br />transportation or health and safety impacts? <br />3. Did LUBA err in affirming a half-street dedication where the local <br />government required the dedication to address future transportation <br />needs and not any immediate safety concerns? <br />7. Summary of Arguments. <br />Intervenor-Respondent rejects each of Intervenors-Petitioners' <br />assignments of error, and each of the arguments advanced thereunder. <br />Intervenor-Respondent offers the following summary of its responses: <br />1. LUBA correctly denied Intervenor-Petitioner Trautman's Motion to <br />Intervene under ORS 197.763(7)0 where the Motion was filed 68 <br />