10 <br />the parties, whether it perceives an ambiguity or not. State v. Gaines, 346 Or at <br />171-72. See also ORS 174.020(3). Finally, if an ambiguity in the statute <br />remains after the analysis of the text, context and legislative history, the Court <br />of Appeals may resort to general maxims of statutory construction. State v. <br />Gaines, 346 Or at 172. <br />In this case, the text of ORS 197.830(7)(c) makes it clear that LUBA <br />properly dismissed the Motion to Intervene, because it mandates denial of an <br />untimely motion. ORS 197.830(7)(a) and (c) provide: <br />"(7)(a) Within 21 days after a notice of intent to appeal has <br />been filed with the board under subsection (1) of this section, <br />any person described in paragraph (b) of this subsection may <br />intervene in and be made a party to the review proceeding by <br />filing a motion to intervene and by paying a filing fee of $100. <br />(c) Failure to comply with the deadline or to pay the filing fee <br />set forth in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall result in <br />denial of a motion to intervene." <br />(Emphasis added). These provisions establish a 21-day period for filing a <br />motion to intervene that runs from the filing of the notice of intent to appeal, <br />and impose a jurisdictional consequence for filing after the deadline. Failure to <br />comply with the deadline "shall result in the denial of a motion to intervene." <br />Accordingly, the statute's plain language required that the untimely motion be <br />denied, and LUBA's decision of dismissal should be affirmed. <br />Moreover, the legislative history for ORS 197.830(7)(c) makes clear that <br />the legislature intended that the 21-day deadline prevent untimely motions. <br />