Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 15.99 (2026)

Time Deadline For Agency Action

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Definitions.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the meanings given.

(b) "Agency" means a department, agency, board, commission, or other group in the executive branch of state government; a statutory or home rule charter city, county, town, or school district; any metropolitan agency or regional entity; and any other political subdivision of the state.

(c) "Request" means a written application related to zoning, septic systems, watershed district review, soil and water conservation district review, or the expansion of the metropolitan urban service area, for a permit, license, or other governmental approval of an action. A request must be submitted in writing to the agency on an application form provided by the agency, if one exists. The agency may reject as incomplete a request not on a form of the agency if the request does not include information required by the agency. A request not on a form of the agency must clearly identify on the first page the specific permit, license, or other governmental approval being sought. No request shall be deemed made if not in compliance with this paragraph.

(d) "Applicant" means a person submitting a request under this section. An applicant may designate a person to act on the applicant's behalf regarding a request under this section and any action taken by or notice given to the applicant's designee related to the request shall be deemed taken by or given to the applicant.

Subd. 2.Deadline for response.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, section 462.358, subdivision 3b, or 473.175, or chapter 505, and notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to zoning, septic systems, watershed district review, soil and water conservation district review, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license, or other governmental approval of an action. Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. If an agency denies the request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request.

(b) When a vote on a resolution or properly made motion to approve a request fails for any reason, the failure shall constitute a denial of the request provided that those voting against the motion state on the record the reasons why they oppose the request. A denial of a request because of a failure to approve a resolution or motion does not preclude an immediate submission of a same or similar request.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (b), if an agency, other than a multimember governing body, denies the request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request. If a multimember governing body denies a request, it must state the reasons for denial on the record and provide the applicant in writing a statement of the reasons for the denial. If the written statement is not adopted at the same time as the denial, it must be adopted at the next meeting following the denial of the request but before the expiration of the time allowed for making a decision under this section. The written statement must be consistent with the reasons stated in the record at the time of the denial. The written statement must be provided to the applicant upon adoption.

Subd. 3.Application; extensions.

(a) The time limit in subdivision 2 begins upon the agency's receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the agency, including the applicable application fee. If an agency receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the 60-day limit starts over only if the agency sends written notice within 15 business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing.

(b) If a request relating to zoning, septic systems, watershed district review, soil and water conservation district review, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area requires the approval of more than one state agency in the executive branch, the 60-day period in subdivision 2 begins to run for all executive branch agencies on the day a request containing all required information is received by one state agency. The agency receiving the request must forward copies to other state agencies whose approval is required.

(c) An agency response, including an approval with conditions, meets the 60-day time limit if the agency can document that the response was sent within 60 days of receipt of the written request. Failure to satisfy the conditions, if any, may be a basis to revoke or rescind the approval by the agency and will not give rise to a claim that the 60-day limit was not met.

(d) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if a state statute, federal law, or court order requires a process to occur before the agency acts on the request, and the time periods prescribed in the state statute, federal law, or court order make it impossible to act on the request within 60 days. In cases described in this paragraph, the deadline is extended to 60 days after completion of the last process required in the applicable statute, law, or order. Final approval of an agency receiving a request is not considered a process for purposes of this paragraph.

(e) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if: (1) a request submitted to a state agency requires prior approval of a federal agency; or (2) an application submitted to a city, county, town, school district, metropolitan or regional entity, or other political subdivision requires prior approval of a state or federal agency. In cases described in this paragraph, the deadline for agency action is extended to 60 days after the required prior approval is granted.

(f) An agency may extend the time limit in subdivision 2 before the end of the initial 60-day period by providing written notice of the extension to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant.

(g) An applicant may by written notice to the agency request an extension of the time limit under this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 42 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W.2d 536 (Minn. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W.2d 536 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 84× “This appeal presents the question of whether a city's failure to timely provide to an applicant a written statement of the reasons for the denial of a request regarding zoning, as required by subdivision 2(c) of Minn.Stat. § 15.99 (2004), triggers the automatic approval penalty…”

Am. Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 50× “We must decide whether appellant, City of Grant (City), complied with the requirements contained in Minn.Stat. § 15.99 (2000) in denying respondent’s request for a conditional use permit (CUP) more than 60 days after receiving respondent’s written request.”

Breza v. City of Minnetrista, 725 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 79× “” 3 Breza responded to the city and cited Minn.Stat. § 15.99 (2000). 4 Breza main *109 tained that section 15.”

500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 837 N.W.2d 287 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 50× “The question presented in this case is whether an application to a heritage-preservation commission for a certificate of appropriateness is a “written request relating to zoning” under Minn.Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a) (2012). If so, then the respondent, City of Minneapolis (“the…”

Moreno v. City of Minneapolis, 676 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 78× “Although not named in the original complaint, the MIA intervened and argued, by way of cross-claim against the city and counterclaim against Smith and Moreno, that its zoning application was automatically approved by operation of Minn.Stat. § 15.99 (2002). In conjunction with…”

Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 756 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 92× “We are asked in this consolidated appeal to determine (1) whether the 60-day rule set out in Minn.Stat. § 15.99 (2006) applies to subdivision applications, and (2) if so, whether the appellants Kanabec County Board of Commissioners, Kanabec County Planning Commission, and…”

N. States Power Co. v. City of Mendota Heights, 646 N.W.2d 919 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 69× “, d/b/a Xcel Energy (Xcel) brought this mandamus petition and declaratory judgment complaint against respondent City of Mendota Heights to compel the city to approve its application for a conditional use permit (CUP) under the automatic approval provisions of Minn.Stat. § 15.99…”

Johnson v. Cook Cnty., 786 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 47× “Johnson responded that his 2001 rezoning request was automatically approved because the County failed to state in writing the reasons for the denial of his request as required by Minn.Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2 (2000). The district court granted the County’s motion for summary…”

Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 713 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 71× “The city appeals, and, because we conclude that the district court properly construed the requirements of section 15.”

Am. Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 621 N.W.2d 37 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 104× “On November 2, 1999, American Tower informed the city that it considered the application approved because the city had not made a decision within 60 days, as required by Minn.Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2 (1998). On the same day, after being told of American Tower's position, the city…”

Advantage Capital Mgmt. v. City of Northfield, 664 N.W.2d 421 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 38× “This is a consolidated appeal from a series of orders in an action seeking a writ of mandamus directing the city to issue a building permit and requesting damages for failure to grant or deny the permit within the time limits prescribed by Minn. Stat. § 15.99 , subd. 2 (2002).…”

Yeh v. Cnty. of Cass, 696 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 27× “Minn.Stat. § 15.99 (2002) 1 ; (6) appellant-developer’s completion of substantial construction before the revocation of the permits gave it a vested interest in the construction; and (7) the district court erred in dismissing appellant-deveL oper’s cross-claim against the county.”

Show all 42 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.