Laserfiche WebLink
to the applicability and problems of the shoreline certification process in general and <br />also for this area. These issues are covered in more detail below. <br />3.3.1 Shoreline Certification Issues at Kapoho <br />There are many issues and intricacies with the shoreline certification process <br />in general, and in particular for the Kapoho area. Before the study for Kapoho <br />proceeded, there was a semi-impasse with the shoreline certification process. The <br />Department of Land and Natural Resources was hesitant to certify shorelines in <br />Kapoho area because of the implication of certifying shorelines that are mauka of <br />established existing lots. If the shoreline certification was an indication of a property <br />line, there was concern that the State may be claiming ownership of land that is <br />located makai of the shoreline. Because shoreline certifications were not being <br />performed in the Kapoho-Vacationland area, the County Planning Department was <br />using surface connection to the ocean as a means to process applications. For <br />example, when an application for a Special Management Area permit was received, <br />the Planning Department would ask for a determination if there was a surface <br />connection with the ocean. If there was, the outline of the surface connection would <br />be determined and a setback would be measured from that outline. <br />There are two key points to raise. First, a shoreline certification by itself, does <br />not determine ownership of land. The explanation for this was provided in a <br />9 <br />consultants report reviewing the shoreline certification process. <br /> Although the <br />shoreline may be indicative of where a property line is located, there is a formal <br />procedure to change the boundaries based on erosion of land. Until this process <br />occurs, there is no change in ownership of land. However, the shoreline certification <br />is indicative of jurisdiction. Mauka of the shoreline, jurisdiction lies with the counties <br />and makai, it rests with the State. So although a shoreline may shift mauka for a <br />particular property, the land may still be privately owned although jurisdiction may <br />change from the county to the State. In this scenario, the private property owner, if <br />building a structure on their property, may need a Conservation District Use <br />Application (CDUA) from the State, whereas before, a Special Management Area <br />permit would have been required from the county. Only if the State, or the landowner <br />went through formal procedures to change the boundary, would there be such a shift <br />in property ownership. <br />Related to this point, the DLNR has changed their policy in November of <br />2006, to accept applications for certifying the shoreline in the Kapoho-Vacationland <br />area. If the lot is found to be makai of the shoreline, the DLNR will not certify the <br />shoreline survey, but will send out a letter stating the subject property is considered <br />9 <br /> Fletcher, C.H., and Hwang, D.J., 1994. Shoreline Certification Review and Recommendations. Office of <br />State Planning – Coastal Zone Management Program, p. 76. <br />27 <br /> <br />