Discrepancies in water use numbers raise concerns over Victory Sports Medicine development

Village Board, citizens’ group request new SEQR determination on project

— The Town Planning Board’s October declaration that the proposed Victory Sports Medicine “Victory Campus” will have no significant adverse environmental impacts on Skaneateles was incorrect and must be reevaluated and revised according to correspondence sent to the Town Planning Board by two separate groups. Both groups, neither coordinating with the other, cited concerns over apparent inconsistencies in the VSM plans, especially proposed water usage, and stated that various project approvals in 2012 were based on outdated information which no longer accurately reflects the development specifications.

The first of the two letters, dated Nov. 6, from Village Director of Municipal Operations Bob Lotkowictz to planning board Chair Mark Tucker, states that the village board of trustees and the village municipal board both are concerned about the VSM project and its associated water usage, the projected numbers of which have changed dramatically between 2011 and 2012.

The second of the two letters, dated Nov. 16, to the entire planning board from attorney Thomas J. Fucillo, acting on behalf of the Citizens to Preserve the Character of Skaneateles, also cites concerns about VSM water usage – and specifically references Lotkowictz’s letter – as well as concerns over traffic, parking, lighting, water quality and archeological impacts, all of which the group contends have not been sufficiently examined to satisfy the planning board’s negative environmental impact declaration concerning the VSM development.

“The Lotkowictz Letter constitutes newly discovered information or information not previously considered by the planning board as lead agency, which clearly demonstrates that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Therefore, the negative declaration issued by the planning board pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) must be rescinded,” Fucillo wrote. “A positive declaration should be issued by the planning board and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by VSM.”

Vote on this Story by clicking on the Icon


if 2 years, 12 months ago

Take a close lock at RZ Engineering calculations done by hand on grid paper. 50,000 SF is used for Med office, not 5,000sf. Typical Med Office uses .1 gallons per day per SF. This equates to 5,000 gallons per day. Now building is 61,000sf so math comes to 6,100 gallons per day.


Askwhythis 2 years, 12 months ago

Typical Medical office does not include Urgent Care and 4 operating rooms... not to mention the other uses... cafe for 40 persons, and 300 person banquet hall.


skangirl 2 years, 12 months ago

"Typical Med Office" also doesn't have a fitness center with shower facilities.


if 2 years, 12 months ago

It is true many Medical Office Buildings do not contain those items. That is not my point. My point is that it is critical to use the correct multiplier of 0.1 gallons per day per square foot in your calculations. American Society for Healthcare Engineering has done extensive studies on water usage and use a factor of 0.1 gallons per day per square foot. Just think about what the Bob Lotkowitz has stated "26,000 gpd at a demand rate of 144gpm". Assuming the medical office building is operated 7 days a week yields an annual amount of 365x26,000=9,490,000 gallons per year. Now go ask the Village Water Department how many gallons of water they sell to all water customers in a year. Some facts: Mirbeau Lodge used 912,500 gallons/yr; Country Club 1,533,000 gallons/yr; Welch Allyn 1,560,375 gallons per year. I don't believe a 61,000 sf medical office building will use twice as much water as those three facilities combined.


Askwhythis 2 years, 12 months ago

Yes.. if there was ONLY a 61,000 sf medical facility But it is so much more...the study and calculations must include the entire facility at its intended use and at peak worse case condition.

So use the 0.1 gpd (or as higher - 0.6 in some references) for the 61,000 medical facility Now add the 171,000 sq ft rec center at the 0.18 gpd factor (or less if you like)
and for now we won't even include the landscaping factors because the study didn't either. Total = ?? It is high. (and in the Sanitary Sewer study... the facility discharges twice the water ii intakes?)

The point is .....
the water study / report by the applicant doesn't address the entire facility and its intended use. .... neither did the Sanitary Sewer study..... or for that matter the Traffic study.


if 2 years, 11 months ago

It is not accurate to multiply the Field House/Indoor Field by the same factor of.1gpd/sf as that multiplier is for Medical Offices. The proper way to calculate the amount of water used in the Field House is to count toilets and sinks and other water fixtures and project a daily usage. It may be of value to ask Ultimate Goal how much water they use in a year.

Not sure how much water they will be purchasing from the Village for Landscaping uses. VSM would have to submit an irrigation plan showing sprinkler and pumps for one to calculate usage. Usually the vendor selling the sprinkler/irrigation system can provide the daily quantity used.

Do you really believe the VSM facility will use over six times as as much water than Welch Allyn? Don't they have close to 1,000 people working out there? I think they have close to 1,800 parking spaces.

You are correct, an updated and accurate water calculation needs to be completed and all previous studies should be discarded. Until then let's not use exaggerated numbers - please play fair.


Askwhythis 2 years, 11 months ago

Agreed we need real numbers.

And yes counting fixtures is one way to determine water use... there are factors generated as well based on actual facilities, including recreational facilities.
Might be worth calling United Sports in Downingtown PA, or Copperstown Field or Dreams, or a couple of golf courses to see how much water they use.


Sign in to comment