Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Quiet Waters Plat Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves Quiet Waters Business Park plat amendment to reflect as‑built square footage
Summary
The Deerfield Beach City Commission unanimously approved a plat note amendment for Quiet Waters Business Park to correct building square footages and permit industrial office uses on one parcel; staff said no new construction was proposed.
The Deerfield Beach City Commission voted unanimously to approve a plat note amendment for Quiet Waters Business Park that adjusts the recorded square footages to match as‑built conditions and permits industrial office uses on a portion of the property.
Armando Hassoun, representing B10 Quiet Waters owner A LLC and B10 Quiet Waters owner B LLC, told the commission the owners purchased the 45.61‑acre site in 2023 and discovered minor discrepancies between the plat note and existing surveys. Hassoun said the application seeks to "conform the plat note to the as built conditions" and that "there's no new construction being proposed." He provided figures showing differences between the plat note and as‑built conditions: Parcel A (buildings 2–5) showed a 15,641‑square‑foot discrepancy; Parcel A1 (building 1) showed an 836‑square‑foot discrepancy; Parcel B (buildings 6–7) showed a 1,627‑square‑foot discrepancy.
David Coviello, also representing the owners, explained the county’s nomenclature requires listing the use as "industrial" on the plat note even though the approved site plan limits uses to light industrial. "The use actually under the site plan is light industrial under the site plan that you approved," Coviello said.
Commissioner Alan Plaut, whose district includes the property, said he had reviewed the application with staff and had no concerns. Commissioner Christopher Hudak asked about the difference in wording between "light industrial" on the presenter’s slide and "industrial" in the county plat language; the presenters explained the discrepancy was a county nomenclature issue and did not change the approved site plan.
After a brief public hearing with no public speakers, Commissioner Plaut moved to approve the item; Commissioner Hudak seconded. The clerk recorded a unanimous roll‑call vote in favor.
Staff noted the amendment is intended to allow the owners to proceed to the county process; Hassoun said the county planning council had provided a letter of accord on the proposed changes and the matter is tentatively scheduled for the county commission in August. The commission emphasized that the approval did not authorize new construction and that the change is administrative to reflect as‑built conditions.
