Committee defers decision on Fleming Road signage

Phillips to convene working group to deal with structure that advertises the Marina Club and Gemcraft Homes

By TOM STAUSS Publisher

Senior General Manager Colby Phillips will organize a working group to consider whether to continue to lease land at the intersection of Fleming Road and State Line that’s the site of a sign that jointly advertises Captain’s Cove Marina Club restaurant and Gemcraft Homes, a builder active in Captain’s Cove.

Once the working group makes a recommendation to the Operating Committee on whether to continue with the land lease, cancel it or not renew it, the matter will then be kicked up to the Board of Directors for a final decision.

The lease costs Captain’s Cove Golf and Yacht Club $200 a month, or $2400 per year.

Gemcraft Homes, which built the sign about five years ago in exchange for having its business advertised on it, does not pay any portion of the land rent, a situation that some members of the Operating Committee during discussion at their Feb. 24 monthly meeting said they would like to end.

Committee member George Finlayson offered a motion to remove Gemcraft from the sign, but he later withdrew it pending creation of the working group, its findings and recommendations.

CCGYC President Tim Hearn, who isn’t a member of the Operating Committee, told members that Gemcraft at no cost to CCGYC rebuilt the sign about five years ago.

It was similar in design to a 1970s-era sign on site that was in poor condition. Finlayson said he recalls a similar structure at that locations for decades.

Hearn said the basic question to be considered is whether the Cove wants to continue with the land lease or give it up, with the likelihood that a commercial entity would jump at the opportunity to take it over.

If the decision is made to continue with the lease, Hearn said the Operating Committee could then consider whether it wanted to continue to allow Gemcraft to share space on the sign.

Most committee members seemed inclined to remove the Gemcraft signage, but that was before they were made aware that Gemcraft had borne the cost of rebuilding it.

Some committee members suggested that Accomack County could be approached to install signage on the property promoting Captain’s Cove or directing motorists to Captain’s Cove and its amenities

Other than this particular sign, there is no way for those unfamiliar with the area other than through vehicle GPS to know where to turn to find Captain’s Cove.

Phillips said she would explore the idea of some sort of county signage with Ron Wolff, the Accomack County Board of Supervisors president who is scheduled to host a town meeting in Captain’s Cove on March 13.

Another suggestion that the working group could explore is whether the cost of the land lease could be shared by CCGYC and Gemcraft.

Phillips said that any Cove resident who would like to serve on the working group should contact her.

She said her intention is to have gathered sufficient information to make a recommendation to the Operating Committee at its next meeting March 31, but no later than the committee’s April meeting.

Majerus withdraws solar guideline motion

Working group to be established to hash out rules for solar panels on roofs in Captain’s Cove

By TOM STAUSS Publisher

Candidly expressing frustration at the inability of the Operating Committee to reach consensus on proposed guidelines for rooftop solar installations in Captain’s Cove, Committee Chair Mark Majerus withdrew a proposal he offered that would have introduced more flexibility in situations where solar is problematic.

During the committee’s Feb. 24 meeting, Majerus offered a motion to establish a procedure in which an owner could apply for a variance that would allow for rooftop solar panels or collectors in situations that, under current rules, would most likely not be allowed.

Majerus said his proposal for greater flexibility in the application process would bring the Cove into compliance with the Virginia Property Owners Association Act (VAPOAA).

His proposal would retain language in the current Cove solar policy in which solar panels would be expected to have a minimal visual impact on the immediate neighborhood, would not be visible from a street, would lie flat on a unit’s roof, and would be located on the rear roof.

But these restrictions could be circumvented if the owner could show that they prevent the desired energy production of a solar installation.

In an application to the Environmental Control Committee, an owner could present documentation from an independent solar design specialist that a proposed solar design increases solar energy collection by five percent over the cost of an alternate roof installation, or that the alternative design would reduce the desired energy production by ten percent.

The designer would need to be certified by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners and licensed in Virginia and could not be employed by the solar installer hired by the homeowner.

Majerus’ proposal suggested that the Environmental Control Committee or Board of Directors could require an interview with the design expert to verify findings. He said his proposal would add flexibility to the Cove rules and would bring it into compliance with VAPOAA language.

But committee members didn’t embrace Majerus’ suggested guideline changes. In one instance, a member suggesting elimination of the current rules requiring no visibility from the street and placement of panels on the rear roof.

When it appeared no consensus could be reached on his motion to approve the variance procedure, Majerus withdrew it and pivoted to a proposal for Senior General Manager Colby Phillips to create a working group to deal with the issue. Committee members agreed.