8th Circuit rules homeowners who built an unpermitted concrete ramp without seeking prior approval cannot…

Record source: CourtListener

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-2472 ___________________________ Jennifer Audette; Robert Audette Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Lake of the Woods County; Lake of the Woods Board of Commissioners; James Nordlof, in his official capacity as a Board member; Cody Hasbargen, in his official capacity as a Board member; Joe Grund, in his official capacity as a Board member; Jon Waibel, in his official capacity as a Board member; Edward Arneson, in his official capacity as a Board member Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: February 10, 2026 Filed: July 24, 2026 ____________ Before LOKEN, L.R. SMITH, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ L.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge. Robert and Jennifer Audette (collectively, “the Audettes”) own a home on the Lake of the Woods in Minnesota. Without prior approval from Lake of the Woods County (the County), the Audettes poured a 12-foot-wide concrete ramp from their property to the lake’s ordinary high-water mark. They attempted to get post- construction approval but the County denied it. Following the denial of their conditional use permit, the Audettes sued the County and its officials, alleging discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court 1 determined that the Audettes missed their opportunity to request an accommodation by violating the County’s instructions. The Audettes appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm. I. Background Minnesota state law recognizes that conservation efforts require compromise between development and preservation. The Minnesota legislature passed two acts, the Shoreland Management Act and the Wetland Conservation Act, to balance the interests between lakeshore development and water conservation. The Wetland Conservation Act emphasizes avoidance of development and prohibits interference with wetlands “unless replaced by actions that provide at least equal public value under a replacement plan . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 103G.222, subd. 1(a). The Shoreland Management Act, by comparison, creates minimum standards for construction, such as structure setbacks and impervious surface limits. See Minn. Stat. § 103F.211. In 2019 the Audettes bought a lakefront home within the Lake of the Woods shoreland. In June 2020, Robert Audette (Robert) met with the County Land and Water Planning Director Josh Strumland and an environmental specialist to discuss plans for property improvements, including additions to the home’s garage. During the site visit, the officials looked at a staked-out garage addition and informed Robert that because the project would be on existing wetland fill, he would not need a permit, “as long as he stays on the existing fill” and ensured that any new concrete stayed under “400 sq[uare] f[ee]t”. R. Doc. 28-3, at 2. 1 The Honorable Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-  At that site visit, the County officials also discussed Robert’s interest in paving a new driveway and installing a new septic system. Director Strumland, unaware of Robert’s plans to pave any other part of the property, told Robert that he could pour concrete to connect his deck to the corner of his garage. Strumland also told Robert that he should install the septic system in a filled area to avoid any wetland impact or necessitate an application to purchase wetland credits as required for new fill. Without County approval, the Audettes constructed a large concrete ramp down to the Lake of the Woods ordinary high-water line. In June 2021, a site inspection confirmed numerous violations resulting from the ramp’s construction. The next month, a Lake of the Woods Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) conservationist published a restoration order that identified approximately 2,122 square feet of wetland impact attributable to the new ramp—more than five times the 400 square feet of new fill discussed at the site visit. The County issued a restoration order directing the Audettes to restore the shoreline to pre-altered conditions. Later that year, the SWCD chair informed Robert that removing the state-funded shoreline riprap and pouring the concrete ramp violated a cost-share project. Robert knew the ramp dismantled a cost-share project when it was constructed. In August 2021, Director Strumland also sent Robert correspondence regarding the violations. Strumland noted the permitting requirements, but he suggested that Robert apply for an after-the-fact permit. In September 2021, Robert submitted an after-the-fact conditional-use permit application describing a “12 ft wide concrete boat ramp” and stating the ramp would provide safe lake access for his family and that “[t]his slab provides handicap accessibility to the lake for my wife. It was built with access and safety in mind.” R. Doc. 28-11, at 7, 11. Robert did not request the required preapplication meeting. -3-  In November 2021, the Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission (Planning Commission) held a hearing. Robert’s representative informed the Planning Commission that Robert “poured the concrete . . . because of his wife’s health issues.” R. Doc. 34-2, at 2–3. Robert told the Planning Commission that although he knew the state had installed the riprap he believed he “c[ould] legally put in my own boat ramp.” Id. at 5. He said he did not apply to pour more concrete because as he continued to pour, a windstorm damaged trees so he extended the walkway “to make it look nice.” Id. at 6. One of the Planning Commission members noted: [W]e can pretty much do whatever, suggest whatever we want to the [C]ounty [B]oard who makes the final decision. I guess, to me he went over and above with the concrete that was not only the 12 foot boat ramp going down but also the extension of the concrete from the garage and the house forward on the property before the boat ramp even takes off from there. You know, if it’s access for your wife and I understand that I think a normal size sidewalk . . . would’ve been acceptable to me. A 12 foot boat ramp with all the additional concrete is not acceptable. Id. at 6–7. Another member noted that the water levels would not allow “any size of [a] boat other than a kayak” in the lake, and Robert affirmed that building a boat launch was “never my intention.” Id. at 9. Ultimately, the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions, including removing some concrete, allowing a “12 foot wide walkway” to the lake, and replacing riprap to the edges of the slab. Id. at 35. On November 9, 2021, the County Board met to consider the permit application. Director Strumland opened the meeting by addressing the County Board. [Director Strumland]: In the application[,] Robert did make mention the reason for the 12-foot wide is wife currently has [multiple sclerosis] and with the kids and everybody there[,] [t]he reason why he removed the [riprap] was [medical], and there was a windstorm that came through and one thing led to another and the trees that were falling -4-  down and all

Official opinion source