The complainants against NSA’s zoning violation retained the services of Moscow attorney Mike Curley for legal counsel and to be their spokesman. Understanding the Zoning Code and its application to a specific building can be confusing, therefore this page has been set aside for Q & A, so that if anything seems a little bit fuzzy, you can ask directly for clarification. Frequently asked questions will be posted along with their answers.

Ask your question by clicking here.

• Dr. Atwood claims that New Saint Andrews College contributes $3 million into the economy; has this figure been confirmed?

Perhaps President Atwood grounds his numbers in a vivid imagination or over-engaged wishful thinking. Or, maybe it’s simple math: 150 students × $20,000 per year = $3 million. If that’s so, then you can do the math on UI’s 10,000 students (wow, what about faculty?).

On the other hand, the number is irrelevant, because even if they do add $3 million into the economy (annually?), wouldn’t they do the same if they were located where they are permitted by the Zoning Code? Although President Atwood might like to make it thus, the discussion is not about whether NSA is good or bad for the community — it’s about whether they are allowed by law to be located downtown.

• The president of New Saint Andrews College, Dr. Roy Atwood, wrote in his Daily News editorial that the Moscow Food Co-op is also ineligible for a permit of zoning compliance under Moscow code. Is this correct?

No, it is not correct. In fact, you’ll notice that “Retail sales enterprises” are the first permitted use in the Central Business District! Moscow City Code then specifies that retail “firms selling bulky items, such as building materials, mobile homes, trailers, boats and heavy equipment” are prohibited. And the last time I shopped at the Co-op, I didn’t see any mobile homes, boats, trailers, or building materials on their shelves.

I would also note that while the code explicitly permits “retail sales enterprises” in the CBD, it does not permit “universities,” a point conceded by Joel Plaskon when he wrote, “I acknowledge that the current use of New Saint Andrews College is not explicitly listed as a permissible use in the CB Zoning District.”

• Do you really advocate “single use zoning” as President Atwood wrote in his Daily News editorial?

Retail sales (in many varieties, including the Co-op), repair shops for commodities (household appliances, bicycles, shoes), professional offices, medical offices, banks, and general business offices rendering professional and personal services, eating and drinking establishments, video arcades, dance halls, physical fitness centers, printing houses, lodges, private clubs, governmental offices, libraries, museums, art galleries, theaters, day care centers, private residences, hotels, motels, auto sales, gas stations, and other uses are permitted downtown, some of them with conditions. Hardly a SINGLE USE district, and when you think about it, there is a lot of diversity available.

We have no quarrel with those uses being permitted. We don’t think hog farms should be permitted there, and we don’t think colleges and universities should be permitted there either — although for some similar and some different reasons. And, not surprisingly, City Council apparently didn’t either since they prohibited both from being there. Perhaps Dr. Atwood is just having trouble with his syllogisms.

Because colleges aren’t allowed downtown and we thought maybe NSA should follow the law, he wrongly concluded — or exercised a great deal of rhetorical hyperbole and name-calling — that we were “single use” advocates. By the way, I wonder exactly which single use he thought we supported?

• NSA says that they got an occupancy permit from the city and that it constitutes their zoning compliance. Why do you say that they are violating the Zoning Code?

They asked for a building permit. At the end of the building process the inspector returned and gave them an occupancy permit — which is part of the building code. Before one actually uses or occupies a space he has built or remodeled, the building inspector should be called to give them an occupancy permit.

There is a separate requirement for the Zoning Administrator (Joel) to issue a Zoning Certificate. That was not done. And, if he followed the zoning law, he couldn’t have issued a zoning certificate anyway because “educational institutions” are not allowed in the zone.

It is somewhat confusing because if you have an occupancy permit, how can you not be allowed to occupy? Well, because you need both. Here’s the section on the zoning certificate:

Sec. 11-2. Zoning Certificates.
A. Zoning Certificates Required: 1. It shall be unlawful to use or occupy or permit the use or occupancy of any building or premises, or both, or part thereof hereafter located, erected, constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, or changed in its use or structure until a zoning certificate has been issued therefor by the Zoning Administrator stating that the proposed use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this Zoning Code.

• Who gave NSA their occupancy permit?

Moscow City Code section 4-11-2 provides that a “Zoning Certificate” must be issued by the Zoning Administrator “stating that the proposed use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this Zoning Code.” An occupancy permit — the follow up to a building permit — is different, and usually issued by a building inspector.

• I read the zoning ordinance and while section 3-5 (B)(7) specifically includes “commercial schools, churches, synagogues, mosques, governmental offices, libraries, museums, art galleries . . .” as “permitted principle uses and structures” — I don’t see anything that specifies any non-permitted uses and structures used for educational purposes. Where does the Code state this prohibition?

You have to look at Section 11-5, entitled “Authorized Uses,” to find your answer. It states, “This Zoning Code is an exclusive zoning ordinance wherein the stated uses are the only uses which are permitted in each zoning district. Those uses not listed as permitted or conditionally permitted are not authorized.”

The City of Moscow has adopted an exclusive code, which boils down to one simple rule: “If it’s not permitted, it’s prohibited.”

• Does the University of Idaho still own the two-or-more storied building at the SE corner of Jackson and Third? Is this building in Moscow’s Central Business Zone? Are the activities conducted in that building compatible with that zone?

Just to keep the record straight — as your questions suggest — it is not the OWNERSHIP of property that is at issue in the central business zone, but the actual USE of the property that controls.

• If the law says that it is “illegal” for universities to be Downtown, and NSA says that they are a university, does this mean that NSA is conducting an illegal business?

There is a bit of ambiguity in the “conducting illegal business” phrase. The business itself is, of course, not illegal. It is only “illegal” (the City Code does use that word) for them to conduct their particular business in the Central Business District (downtown basically).

• How is this related to NSA’s tax problems when they flouted the law and evaded property tax?

I have to say that I think fair is fair, and while I have been involved with both the tax issue and the current zoning matter, I don’t think it’s quite fair to say that NSA “flouted” the tax law or “evaded” taxes. They admitted openly that a non-exempt entity operated in their building, and requested that they be taxed only on that portion. The request was granted.

Only when two concerned local women pointed out to the Latah County Tax Board that the tax code says the use has to be EXCLUSIVELY for exempt purposes, did someone take a closer look and say, “By golly, they aren’t entitled to ANY exemption.” NSA’s interpretation of the law had been followed on a few prior occasions, and although I think it was wrong — and the County Attorney agreed by the way — it wasn’t unlawful for them to make the assertion.

NSA was ordered last summer by the Latah County Commissioners to be taxed on one-half of the building because it was not exclusively used for educational purposes. I believe the NSA appeal of that determination is pending — if unsuccessful, they will be required to pay tax on that half of the building for this tax year, but not for prior years.