13 <br />the delay in service on Trautman provides no basis to toll the filing of the <br />motion to. intervene. <br />Moreover, nothing in ORS 197.830(1) requires service of the Notice of <br />Intent to Appeal to complete filing. Instead, that provision states only that <br />"Review of land use decisions or limited land use decisions under ORS 197.830 <br />to 197.845 shall be commenced by filing a notice of intent to appeal with the <br />Land Use Board of Appeals." While LUBA has established separate "service" <br />requirements under OAR 661-010-0015(2) in addition to its filing requirements <br />at OAR 661-010-0015(1), the service requirements are not relevant to <br />determining whether a Notice, of Intent to Appeal is filed. <br />Intervenors-Petitioners also cite to ORS 1.97.805, and argue based on a <br />series of cases dealing with a trial court's authority to set aside a judgment of <br />default under ORCP 71 that "sound principles governing judicial review" <br />warrant that the intervenor have his "day in court.". Opening Brief, p. 13.4 <br />However, the Intervenors-Petitioners fail to acknowledge that, unlike trial <br />courts, LUBA is "an administrative agency that was granted its existence and <br />authority to act by the legislature." Just v. City of Lebanon, 193 Or App 132, <br />141, 88 P3d 312, rev allowed 337 Or 247, 95 Pad 728 (2004) rev dismissed 342 <br />4 Intervenors-Petitioners also cite to David M. Scott Construction v. Farrell, 285 <br />Or 563, 592 P2d 551 (1979) in support of its argument. However, that case <br />dealt with the issue. of whether an appellant was required to file an appeal of an <br />earlier interlocutory "Decree" when it appealed the final "Supplemental <br />Decree." The Intervenors-Petitioners do not explain how this case applies <br />where Trautman filed no appeal of his own. <br />