Committee approves SMA permit and shoreline‑setback variance for Hawaii Kai lot after debate over shoreline definitions

The Committee on Zoning on Jan. 16 amended and reported out Resolution 24‑256 CD1, which grants a Special Management Area (SMA) major permit and a shoreline setback variance for a proposed single‑family dwelling at a shoreline lot in Hawaii Kai (listed on the agenda as 6973 Kolenia Noole Highway, tax map key 39002031).

The committee considered a hand‑carried CD1 (OCS 2025‑0053) that added clarifying conditions: it limited the shoreline‑setback variance approval to the dwelling encroachment (not to other minor structures), required the applicant to submit a written determination from the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) to DPP prior to any ground‑disturbing activity, and required the applicant to obtain a separate minor shoreline structure permit for any otherwise permitted minor structures makai of the approved variance area.

Why the variance was disputed

DPP had recommended approving the SMA permit but denying the shoreline setback variance, finding the applicant did not meet the three hardship tests required for a variance. The applicant and the chair emphasized that a newly constructed state jetty at the Hawaii Kai Marina entrance has caused accretion (shoreline buildup) and moved the physical/high‑water (physical) shoreline makai compared with the previously certified “paper” shoreline. The applicant’s agent argued that while the dwelling is approximately 104 feet mauka of the physical shoreline, the dwelling encroaches roughly 20 feet inside the paper shoreline and that the difference is driven by accretion after the jetty’s construction. The applicant quantified the encroachment area at about 442.74 square feet of building area (about 885.28 square feet of floor area split between the first and second floors) encroaching into the 40‑foot shoreline setback measured from the paper shoreline; the project site area was described on the record as approximately 10,007–10,016 square feet at different points in the presentation.

Applicant, agency and public statements

Roy Ire (Hawaii Engineering Group), representing NMG LSC Properties (the applicant), presented aerial photos and certified shoreline surveys and argued the lot is triangular and uniquely impacted by shoreline accretion due to the jetty, reducing practical building area and justifying the variance. Michael Catt of DPP confirmed the property will connect to the city sewer; he also said modeling indicates accretion in the project area and that access to the shoreline is through private driveways rather than official city access.

Public testimony included concerns about public shoreline access and the use of public land posed by James Ciamalakos Sr., who asked how the development would affect shoreline users. DPP acknowledged that the council had come to a different conclusion from the department on the variance and said DPP accepted the council’s action.

Conditions and liabilities included in CD1

The CD1 requires SHPD written determination be submitted before ground‑disturbing activity, limits the variance to the encroachment of the dwelling, and states the landowner agrees to assume risk and liability for coastal hazards, including removal and cleanup of materials and structures damaged by coastal processes. The CD1 also requires applicants to obtain a minor shoreline structure permit for other permitted shoreline structures and includes a clause protecting the city from certain civil actions arising from review or approval of the permit.

Committee action

The committee amended Resolution 24‑256 to the hand‑carried CD1 and reported the measure out for adoption; the chair stated it is rare to overrule DPP recommendations and provided the rationale for the CD1 to committee members. The amendment was made with no recorded objection at the time the chair called for it.

Why it matters

Shoreline setback variances hinge on technical shoreline surveys (paper versus physical shoreline) and on statutory limitations for moving recorded shorelines. The committee’s decision highlights how post‑construction shoreline changes (accretion after jetties) can affect permit outcomes and raises questions about long‑term shoreline management and liability for coastal hazards.

(Reporting note: transcript contains multiple numeric references to lot size and encroachment area; the article reports figures as presented on the record.)