Storage Kings appeals Fargo inspection denial for mezzanine height; board hears testimony but cannot vote

CHAD NEFF, OWNER OF STORAGE KINGS, APPEARS BEFORE FARGO BOARD OF APPEALS — Chad Neff, who identified himself as the owner and general contractor for Storage Kings, asked the Fargo Board of Appeals to grant a modification to the city’s ceiling-height requirement for a storage loft at 4108 44th Street North. Neff said the space is used only for occasional storage of equipment and records, that it is not a habitable or daily-occupancy area, and that it presents no life-safety hazard.

Neff told the board the loft was framed early in construction and should have been visible during multiple inspections. He said correcting the issue now would require removing electrical and mechanical systems, and he provided remediation cost estimates: $26,500 from Magnum Electric for electrical work and a HVAC line item he reported as $4,965, for a total he put at $31,465. “We relied on the inspector’s inspection to move forward with the project,” Neff said, arguing the department’s enforcement imposed a substantial cost on his company.

WHY THE BOARD DIDN’T VOTE — City inspections staff told the board the department’s records do not include plans showing the mezzanine. Staff said the first time the office saw any mezzanine plan was during the inspection that led to the failure, and that the drawing package Neff provided would not have been adequate for an initial plan review because it lacked required detail and cross sections. Staff asked the board to uphold the department’s denial on the basis that the submitted documentation did not meet applicable code or plan-review standards.

STAFF AND APPELLANT DISAGREE ON CODE APPLICATION — Neff cited International Building Code provisions and City of Fargo standards allowing reduced clearances for furred ceilings or non-habitable spaces, and asked the board to approve the ceiling-height variance (Neff described the finished clearance as roughly 6 feet 8 inches versus the 7-foot standard). Inspections staff said the relevant rules for occupiable spaces require a 7-foot minimum and that some means-of-egress provisions invoked by Neff would require barriers or other measures that are not in place for this site.

NEXT STEPS — Board members and staff advised Neff that the Board of Appeals can rule only on whether existing code was applied correctly, not create new code. Multiple members recommended Neff work with the inspections office and retain a design professional or engineer to produce a full, code-complete plan set or to explore alternatives (for example, changing girts/joists) that might avoid costly reconstructions. Because the bylaws require a quorum of four voting members to overturn a building official’s decision and only three voting members were present, the board heard testimony but did not take a vote on the appeal. The item will be placed on a future agenda or a special session may be called once the appellant and staff have had further discussions and any new documentation is provided.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT — Neff also described prior disagreements with inspectors on separate cold-storage buildings and recounted a $7,200 expense to install fire extinguishers after a dispute with an inspector; inspections staff said those matters were outside the scope of this appeal. Board members emphasized that responsibility for code-compliant design rests with the project’s design professionals and that the city’s plan reviewers check submitted plans but cannot substitute for missing or incomplete documentation.

The hearing record will be included in the minutes and revisited when a quorum is available and any supplemental documentation is submitted.