accept only one appeal from a land use decision and that the appellant is not required to appear at any subsequent hearing. 29 See North Las Vegas, Nev., Municipal Code § 17.28.050(D)(2), (3). 30 Boulder City v. Cinnamon Hills Assocs., 110 Nev. 238, 247, 871 P.2d 320, 326 (1994). 31 See North Las Vegas, Nev., Municipal Code § 17.28.050(D). 32 Id. § 17.28.050(D)(1), (3). 33 See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. CMC of Nevada, 99 Nev. 739, 744, 670 P.2d 102, 105 (1983) (“Courts must construe statutes and ordinances to give meaning to all of their parts and language. The court should read each sentence, phrase, and word to render it meaningful within the context of the purpose of the legislation.” (citations omitted)); Clark Co. Sch. Dist. v. Local Gov’t, 90 Nev. 442, 446, 530 P.2d 114, 117 (1974) (<HOLDING>). 34 NRS 278.3195(3)(a). 35 North Las Vegas,
holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation recognizing that deference to an agencys interpretation of the written law is appropriate only when that interpretation is within the written laws language holding that deference is owed to state agencys interpretation of state law holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference