12 <br />was incorporated into the final legislation. App-6. This legislative history <br />makes clear that the statute says what it means, and means what it says: that a <br />late-filed motion to intervene shall be denied. <br />The Intervenors-Petitioners complain that the other petitioners did not <br />effect timely service of their Notice of Intent to Appeal on Trautman,3 and <br />argue that since they failed to do so the Notice of Appeal was not "properly" <br />filed under ORS 197:830(1). Opening Brief, p. 12. However, the statute makes <br />clear that the deadline for filing a Motion to Intervene runs from the date the <br />Notice of Intent to Appeal is "filed with the board" and not from the date of <br />service of the Notice of Intent to Appeal on any the parties. (Emphasis added). <br />Accordingly, a delay in service, under the statute, does not extend the deadline <br />for filing a motion to intervene, any more that a delay in mailing notice of a <br />final land use decision tolls the deadline for appealing that decision. See Wicks- <br />Snodgrass v. City of Reedsport, 148 Or App 217, 223, 939 P2d 625 rev den 326 <br />Or 59, 944 P2d 948, 949 (1997). The legislature clearly knows how to suspend <br />a filing deadline until the notice is "mailed or otherwise submitted to the <br />parties - as it uses mailing as the deadline .for appealing plan and land use <br />regulation amendments under ORS 197.830(9) - but it chose to make deadline <br />for filing a motion to intervene dependent upon the date of filing. Accordingly, <br />3 Intervenors-Petitioners also complain that the City of Eugene's record-keeping <br />resulted in Trautman not receiving various local notices. However, Trautman <br />resided in Idaho, a fact which he did not make known to the. City until after the <br />LUBA process was commenced. Rec. 823. <br />