The seven-member board that oversees the state Department of Land and Natural Resources signaled Friday that it might pull its support for a major $10 million beach nourishment project on Maui’s Kaanapali Beach.

The project has attracted pushback from community members concerned about the environmental impacts of mining large amounts of sand from offshore to counter the erosion erasing the beach and threatening high-end resorts.

While the project would enlarge the public beach, it’s been criticized as largely benefiting the oceanfront hotels and condos in the Kaanapali Beach Resort and encouraging them to stay put rather than start looking at options for retreating from the shoreline.

The Land Board also voted Friday to fine a Punaluu beachfront homeowner $188,000 for years of shoreline violations, including building a rock wall in the shoreline area and maintaining massive sandbags on the public beach to protect his property.

The fine is one of the largest for a shoreline enforcement case, but more surprising was the board’s unprecedented step in saying it would waive the fine if the owner tears down or relocates his house off the property within six months and removes all the infrastructure, including sewer and electrical lines, to ensure it’s not redeveloped.

The decisions signaled that the Land Board, which sets policy for DLNR and since December has been chaired by Dawn Chang, is taking a much more aggressive stance in confronting the realities of climate change and sea-level rise and is doubling down on its mission to protect public beaches and the nearshore marine environment over the interests of private property.

“It’s a huge departure,” said Bianca Isaki, an attorney representing groups opposing the Kaanapali project. She said that in past years the Land Board has not always done a good job of protecting public-trust resources.

Beginning in 1959, American Factors Inc. began developing Kaanapali into the state’s first master-planned resort. High-rise luxury hotels and condos now line the shoreline, and the resort’s 4,800 visitor rooms accommodate more than half a million visitors each year, according to the Ka‘anapali Beach Resort Association.

The resorts began looking into the possibility of replenishing the beach as far back as 2006, and in 2014 forged a cost-sharing agreement with DLNR to fund the project. Construction costs are currently pegged at about $10 million, which would be split between DLNR and the Kaanapali Operations Association, whose members include 11 hotels and condos, two shopping centers and two golf courses.

The Legislature has already appropriated $5.2 million for the project. DLNR’s Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands has been overseeing the project for the state, and on Friday was seeking the Land Board’s approval of the 2014 memorandum of understanding with the Kaanapali Operations Association.

The matter before the Land Board was seen as relatively narrow, providing the mechanism by which the resort association could deposit its share of project costs into a fund. The project still needs additional permits, including a major approval by the Land Board for a conservation district use permit that would require a public hearing.

But public testimony and board member comments on the item quickly turned to the merits of the project overall.

Land Board member Aimee Barnes questioned whether it makes sense to spend millions dredging large amounts of sand from offshore to place on a beach when it’s not going to last. The state estimates that sand could remain for about 15 to 30 years before the beach is once again eroded.

“I’m just confused about how we are contemplating spending more money on this project which does not seem like it will even last very long and is an expensive and very temporary — I’m not even going to call it a solution, but a measure that will have what seems to me fairly significant environmental impacts,” said Barnes at the start of the hearing on the item.

DLNR received about 130 pages of written testimony from the public that was overwhelmingly opposed to the project. Community members from Maui also provided impassioned testimony via video.

Katie Austin said it isn’t taxpayers’ responsibility to protect hotels that were built too close to the ocean and on top of sand. “I strongly feel the state and our DLNR has no business paying for a project that is for direct protection of private property,” she said.

Kekai Keahi, who is from West Maui, said the project will damage one of the island’s most vibrant reefs, which sits just offshore of the resorts.

“They are going to mine sand from one of Lahaina’s most important fishing grounds and take this and bring it on shore and will cover the reefs in front of the Kaanapali,” he said, urging board members to reject the MOU.

Following public testimony, Land Board member Doreen Canto said she was opposed to the project.

“I’m not against beach restoration; I’m against desecration,” she said. “Dredging the sand will impact the nearshore environment, fishing, lifeguard services, cultural practices and canoe racing.”

The Land Board voted unanimously to reject approval of the MOU. While the vote doesn’t kill the project, it sent a powerful message that the Land Board, which still must approve a CDUP for the project in order for it to move forward, has serious concerns. It also creates uncertainty about its funding.

The Kaanapali Operations Association didn’t testify during Friday’s hearing and didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The Land Board also signaled to private homeowners that it is taking a much harder line when it comes to armoring the shoreline. DLNR’s Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands has been grappling with dozens of oceanfront homeowners who have received emergency permits to install heavy sandbags and tarps on the public beach to protect their homes from the ocean. The permits are temporary and supposed to provide property owners with time to figure out what to do with their doomed homes.

Instead, property owners have refused to remove the barriers once they expire, typically after three years. This has resulted in massive sandbags and tarps littering the shorelines along some of the state’s most prized beaches. The barriers, like seawalls, can cause beach loss and block public beach access.

Matthew Tang is among the property owners in Punaluu on Oahu who refused to remove his sandbags once they expired. He also illegally built a wall along the public shoreline and, according to DLNR, dumped other debris such as logs to protect his home from falling into the ocean.

Tang told the Land Board on Friday he had been holding out hope that the City and County of Honolulu would grant him and his neighbors a seawall, even though their application was rejected and they lost a court appeal. Tang uses the home as a vacation rental, though it is unpermitted.

“This is my first time dealing with shoreline erosion and all of this,” he told the Land Board in seeking leniency.

“I don’t think so, Mr. Tang,” responded Chang. “You were cited in 2013. You were cited again in 2017 and 2021. I really am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your actions don’t seem consistent with what you are telling us.”

In recent days Tang hired workers to remove the sandbags and other debris on the shoreline, and told the Land Board he was moving the house back on the lot even though he didn’t have a city permit to relocate it. Tang said he didn’t have a choice because without the barriers it was going to fall into the ocean.

But Land Board members weren’t swayed by this last-minute removal of the material, given OCCL’s repeated warnings.

In recent months he had also been trying to sell the property, before taking down the ad this week.

“You own a piece of property that is in an area that is subject to erosion. You have known about that for 10 years,” said Land Board member Riley Smith. “One of the responsibilities of owning property on the ocean is understanding what you are buying.”

The Land Board ruled 6-1 to fine Tang $188,000, the full amount proposed by OCCL, which it will waive if he removes the home from the property. Tang did not indicate what he plans to do.