Clearwater board orders owner of 403 Princess St. to repair exterior, sets Feb. 22 compliance deadline

The City of Clearwater Municipal Enforcement Board ordered the owner of 403 Princess Street to correct exterior‑surface and roof‑maintenance violations by Feb. 22, 2025, and warned the owner that the board may impose fines of $150 per day per violation if the property remains out of compliance.

Inspector Daniel Kazma, a code enforcement inspector with the City of Clearwater, presented the case (Case No. 01‑25) and said the violations included code section 3‑1502(b) for exterior surfaces and sections 3‑1502(d)(1) and (d)(3) for roof maintenance. Kazma said he first documented damage in August 2024, showed board photographs of collapsed carport structures, tarps covering a secondary dwelling unit, and vegetation encroaching on the building, and reported that certified notices of violation had been sent. “This is case number 1‑25 for 403 Princess Street,” Kazma said, and he recommended compliance by Feb. 22, 2025, or daily fines.

Dr. Julius Okuboye, who identified himself as the property owner, denied neglect and said he had applied for permits and hired a builder and an engineer who signed plans the morning of the hearing. “I deny any supposition that I neglected the property or I refused to repair it,” Okuboye said. He asked the board for more time, saying storms and medical treatment had delayed work and that he would need several months to finish. “I would ask for more, like 3 months or even 4,” he said, adding that he had already started work and removed vehicles from the carport area.

A neighbor, Rhett Pennington, who identified himself as a real estate broker and investor and the owner of 407 Princess, told the board he had repeatedly complained about the same property and described interior and exterior hazards he called “slumlord conditions.” Pennington said the big tree near the rear garage posed a hazard to his fence and roof and urged the board to require faster action.

Board members and staff discussed realistic timeframes for permits and construction. One member noted that engineered drawings commonly require review cycles and city questions before a permit can be approved; another recommended the board require evidence of concrete progress (for example, permit application and removal of the most hazardous features) at the next meeting. Rebecca Mulder, the city’s code manager, also explained that hazardous tree complaints are handled by a different division (land resource/arboreal inspectors) and said citizens may submit a separate hazardous‑tree complaint for arborist inspection.

After discussion, the board entered an order binding the respondent to correct the violations by Feb. 22, 2025. The order states that if the respondent does not comply by that date the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day the violations continue to exist; unpaid fines, costs and fees may become a lien and the city is authorized to foreclose, collect or settle the lien if unpaid three months after filing.

The board and staff clarified that the board will accept administrative updates from staff on progress (for example, whether a permit application was submitted) and will return the matter to the board only if staff files an affidavit of noncompliance.

Board action: The board voted to enter the order requiring correction of the violations by Feb. 22, 2025, with the $150/day fine authority and lien/foreclosure language noted in the board motion.