Attachment 5 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />participated orally or in writing during the proceedings, and thus provided <br />inaccurate and incomplete information to Neighbors about who should be <br />served with a copy of the NITA under OAR 661-010-0015(3)(f)(D). <br />In our May 1, 2014 order, we relied on our order in Mountain West <br />Investment Corp. v. City of Silverton, 38 Or LUBA 932, 934 (2000), to <br />conclude that we would not deny Trautman's motion to intervene where the <br />delay in filing the motion to intervene was attributable to the city's failure to <br />provide required notice of the decision to all parties entitled to notice and its <br />corresponding failure to provide Neighbors with complete information for <br />purposes of satisfying their service obligations under OAR 661-010-0015(2) <br />and (3)(f)(D). In Mountain West Investment, the petitioner failed to serve a <br />copy of the NITA on the applicant of record, as required by ORS 197.830(9) <br />(and OAR 661-010-0015(2) and (3)(f)(C)). The applicant moved to intervene <br />as soon as it became aware that the NITA was filed, and in fact, prior to being <br />served with a copy of the NITA. With little discussion, we concluded that "in <br />[that] circumstance we do not believe ORS 197.830(7) requires that the motion <br />to intervene be denied." Id. <br />On reconsideration of Trautman's motion to intervene and Meadows' <br />arguments, we conclude that ORS 197.830(7)(c) requires us to deny <br />20 Trautman's late-filed motion to intervene. Trautman failed to file his motion to <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />intervene within 21 days after the NITA was filed, and in that circumstance <br />ORS 197.830(7)(c) provides that such failure "shall result in a denial of the <br />motion to intervene." Even in the circumstances presented here, where the late <br />filing occurred as a result of the city's recordkeeping and mailing errors and <br />where denying a late-filed motion to intervene in that circumstance is arguably <br />inequitable, LUBA must strictly adhere to deadlines imposed by statute. Lange- <br />Page 5 <br />PC Agenda - Page 111 <br />