Haw. Rev. Stat. § 6E-42

Current through the 2024 Legislative Session
Section 6E-42 - Review of proposed projects
(a) Except as provided in section 6E-42.2, before any agency or officer of the State or its political subdivisions approves any project involving a permit, license, certificate, land use change, subdivision, or other entitlement for use, which may affect historic property, aviation artifacts, or a burial site, the agency or office shall advise the department and prior to any approval allow the department an opportunity for review and comment on the effect of the proposed project on historic properties, aviation artifacts, or burial sites, consistent with section 6E-43, including those listed in the Hawaii register of historic places. If:
(1) The proposed project consists of corridors or large land areas;
(2) Access to properties is restricted; or
(3) Circumstances dictate that construction be done in stages,

the department's review and comment may be based on a phased review of the project; provided that there shall be a programmatic agreement between the department and the project applicant that identifies each phase and the estimated timelines for each phase.

(b) The department shall inform the public of any project proposals submitted to it under this section that are not otherwise subject to the requirement of a public hearing or other public notification.
(c) The department shall adopt rules in accordance with chapter 91 to implement this section.

HRS § 6E-42

Amended by L 2015, c 224,§ 3, eff. 7/1/2015.
Amended by L 2013, c 85,§ 3, eff. 5/24/2013.
L 1988, c 265, pt of §1; am L 1990, c 306, §12; am L 1995, c 187, §3; am L 1996, c 97, §10

This section requires a permitting agency to seek state historic preservation division review and comment only when the permitting agency knows, or has reason to suspect, that the project may impact a burial or other historic site; where there was no evidence that defendant city department of planning and permitting knew or should have known that a burial site existed on the property, the circuit court properly ruled that the city did not violate this section. 122 H. 171 (App.), 223 P.3d 236.