The City of Fargo Appeals Board on an appeal hearing upheld the city's determination that siding underlayment used on a recent project was installed incorrectly and must be removed.

The ruling came after contractor and appellant Scott Doms challenged the correction notice and urged the board to address what he described as a broader failure in the city's permitting and inspection system for siding work.

Doms told the board his challenge was not just about a single job but about "the lack of meaningful inspection and accountability within the city's permitting process for siding work." He said permit fees imply inspection and oversight but that, in his experience, "underlayment inspections are rarely if ever performed," and that he has not been told in 15 years of contracting in Fargo that the product he used was incorrect. Doms asked the board to reverse the correction notice and to examine permitting integrity, field inspections and fairness for contractors and homeowners.

A city representative identified as the building official responded by citing the 2021 International Residential Code, R105.4, reading the provision that the issuance of a permit does not prevent the building official from requiring correction of errors in construction documents or other data. The building official told the board: "If we find a deficiency, no matter what stage it is in the process, we have a duty to call that deficiency out." The city presented that as the basis for the correction notice and the requirement to install an approved weather barrier under the siding.

Board discussion included a statement that the material had been specified and installed under Doms' supervision and a remark that the supplier and manufacturer do not approve the material for the installed use. One board member summarized: the board could not see an alternative to upholding the city's decision.

Board member (identified in the transcript as the building official) moved to reject the appeal and uphold the city's findings; the hearing officer called for the vote and the motion carried. The board did not record a roll-call tally in the transcript beyond unanimous verbal agreement.

This proceeding combined an individual appeal (correction notice for a particular project) with broader claims from the appellant about systemic inspection gaps. The record shows the board treated the matter as a formal appeal of a correction notice and resolved it by upholding the city's determination that the installed underlayment did not meet requirements and must be addressed.

At the close of the meeting the board had no new business and adjourned.