Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elizabeth fire marshal outlines rural code limits, water and access hurdles for Elbert County development
Summary
Cara Gerzinski, Elizabeth Fire Protection District division chief and fire marshal, told the planning commission that access and water supply are the two primary constraints for development in Elbert County and described common rural mitigations such as cisterns, sprinklers and cash-in-lieu contributions.
Cara Gerzinski, division chief and fire marshal for the Elizabeth Fire Protection District, told the Elbert County Planning Commission that rural development is constrained primarily by access and by water supply required under the fire code.
"The fire code is really based on municipal water supplies," Gerzinski said, adding that commercial development in much of the county would be impossible under the base code without alternatives such as on-site cisterns or building sprinklers. She told commissioners the typical minimum for commercial projects is 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi and 1,000 gpm at 20 psi for residential needs.
Gerzinski walked commissioners through common alternatives developers use to meet the code's intent: installation of 30,000-gallon cisterns, building fire sprinklers in residences, or putting money into a county infrastructure fund that pays for portable tanks and tender vehicles used in rural firefighting. She said the Insurance Services Office (ISO) treats a 30,000-gallon cistern as a reliable water source for tender shuttles and for ISO-rating purposes.
Commissioners pressed Gerzinski on the county's longstanding cash-in-lieu figure (derived from a 1997 study). Gerzinski said the Elbert County Fire Chiefs Association had kept a $1,040 figure in place but acknowledged the amount is likely out of date; she said the chiefs chose not to pursue a new study at this time but that funds are used for infrastructure such as cisterns, porta-tanks and tenders.
She described access requirements that often drive project-specific changes: engines must be able to get within 150 feet of all parts of a building; roads generally need a 20-foot all-weather surface though some exceptions exist for remote utilities; residential subdivisions should not have more than 30–35 homes on a single dead-end without a second emergency access.
Gerzinski warned commissioners that many Elbert County fire districts are staffed by volunteers or by chiefs who split their time between shifts and plan review duties, which can delay referral comments. She encouraged early fire-protection or fire-safety agreements in the pre-application stage so districts can identify needs before final plat or building-stage submittals.
On enforcement, Gerzinski said the fire code gives districts authority to stop construction when developers refuse required safety measures.
The presentation concluded with commissioners thanking Gerzinski for her time and noting continued interest in station siting, cistern placement and potential updates to fee schedules.
The commission heard this presentation and Q&A during its regular meeting; Gerzinski also reported that an active fire earlier in the day had been brought to mop-up with mutual-aid resources on scene.
