Scott Domz, owner of Archde Design, appealed a city correction notice that requires a weather-resistant barrier beneath fanfold insulation installed on a residential re-siding project in Fargo. Domz told the board he submitted drawings that called out 'fanfold installation' as the underlayment, said the city approved the plans, and argued inspectors saw the installation multiple times without raising issues.

City building staff told the board they contacted Owens Corning, the manufacturer identified in project correspondence, and were told the specific fanfold product used on the house is a perforated board that cannot serve as a substitute for a weather-resistant barrier. Staff said they had believed felt underlayment remained in place beneath the fanfold but were unable to confirm that; without confirmation, staff must enforce the code and the manufacturer's installation guidance.

Domz said the underlayment and the siding were installed to manufacturer instructions, that the fanfold seams and penetrations were taped, and that the system was visible in photographs taken during construction. He argued the city missed multiple opportunities during inspections to flag a problem and that retroactive enforcement on one project would be arbitrary if the material is widely used in the city.

Staff replied that Owens Corning's guidance showed the specific product in question is perforated and not intended to act as a weather barrier, and that the International Residential Code (section R703.2) requires an approved water-resistive barrier where a weather barrier is required. Staff said inspectors sometimes rely on visible evidence during field inspections and on contractor confirmation; because the permit remains open, enforcement can still be applied to this project.

Board members and staff identified three practical paths: 1) Domz or the homeowner produce documentation or field evidence that a compliant water-resistive barrier (for example, felt or an approved product) remains in place beneath the fanfold; 2) the project team submit cut sheets and manufacturer documentation proving the installed fanfold is an approved weather barrier; or 3) the project team pursue an 'alternate method' approval supported by independent testing or a certified testing agency showing that the assembled wall meets the performance characteristics of a code-compliant water-resistive barrier.

The board voted to continue the appeal to the next meeting (June 5) to allow Domz, the homeowner, and staff time to pursue documentation or an alternate-method test. Staff committed to work with the contractor and homeowner and said the department prefers an approved alternative over requiring full re-siding if a performance-based submittal can be documented and approved.

Direct quotes and key claims in the record include Domz's statement that 'the city approved the plans' and his observation that 'the field inspector visited the site at least 5 different times while the underlayment was fully visible'; and staff's summary that Owens Corning told them 'this [product] cannot be used in place of a house wrap or weather barrier.'

The board closed the hearing and continued it until the June 5 meeting; if Domz and the homeowner submit an alternative-method submittal or documentation of an approved underlayment before that date, the codes office said it would evaluate the materials without requiring the board to reconvene.