David Petralla Deposition

DAVID PETRELLA,

having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

By: Mr. Emrich

Q. And your address?

A. My official address is a Michigan residence. Currently, we have a condominium here at 700 La Peninsula Boulevard.

Q. And what role do you play in the master board?

A. I am the current president.

Q. And before that were you on the master board?

A. Yes.

Q. And what role did you play on the master board?

A. I was a director from 2018 until such time that I was voted in as president.

Q. And that was when?

A. July 2019.

Q. So, as president you were present at the July 11 of 2019 meeting?

A. Correct, but I did not assume the presidency until after that meeting.

Q. So, it was effective after that meeting, sir?

A. Correct.

Q. But you were involved in the vote that was taken at that time?

A. Correct.

Q. And were you involved in preparing any of the minutes at that time?

A. I assisted in supplying notes to management for the March 12th meeting. Yes.

Q. The March 12th meeting of 2019?

A. Correct.

Q. And my understanding is that you would have also been then involved in the January 2019 meeting of the master board?

A. I was present, yes.

Q. And are you familiar, sir, your role with regard to the architectural control committee of the master board?

A. Maybe if you could be more specific?

Q. Would you -- you said that you got on the board in 2018. What part of 2018?

A. Most likely it was March of 2018, when we had the annual board of director elections.

Q. And at any time since you've been on the board in March of 2018, have there been any changes in your bylaws, your declaration documents, any of the documents that govern your association's operation from what was adopted in August of 2015?

A. Yes.

Q. So, there have been changes?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did those occur?

A. To the best of my recollection, they would have been May or June of 2019.

Q. 2019?

A. Or maybe 2020.

Q. 2020. So, it would not have been around the time that this project was first approved by the 200 board and the 200 owners. Correct?

A. It would have been subsequent to that.

Q. Thank you, sir. Now, in 2018 when you got on the board, was there an architectural control committee?

A. I don't believe so. Not an active one.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. There were no designated members at the time.

Q. And how long had that been the case?

A. Probably since prior to or just at the time of Hurricane Irma.

Q. As to what? I'm sorry. I didn't catch the last part?

A. Prior to Hurricane Irma.

Q. What was the date of that?

A. For our community, that was September 2017.

Q. So, was the architectural control committee put in abeyance at that time, or just suspended? Or what happened?

A. That's a very good description. I think it was placed in abeyance, and used as an ad hoc committee rather than a standing committee.

Q. So, at any point from March of 2018 until January of 2019, was there an arc control committee in place on the board, master board?

A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Q. So, at what point do you -- was the architectural control committee reinstituted?

A. It was after -- it was actually at the first meeting that I ran as president. That would have been August of 2019.

Q. So, at the time of the March 2019 master board meeting, there was no arc committee in place?

A. Correct.

Q. And that would have been the case in January of 2019 as well?

A. Yes.

Q. In looking at -- let me see if can find it a

minute here, sir. R-31.

MS. WARD: Working on that.

MR. EMRICH: Okay. Thank you. (Whereupon, the document was marked as Respondent's Exhibit No. 31 for identification.)

MR. EMRICH: And, your Honor, just for your edification, this particular document was part of the additional documents that counsel provided earlier last week as part of an amended submission. Or it may have been even the week before that, your Honor.

THE ARBITRATOR: But did you object to those?

MR. EMRICH: What's that?

THE ARBITRATOR: Did you object to R-25 through 31?

MR. EMRICH: No, I did not. I only objected to the one document -- so called legal opinion.

MS. WOODCOCK: We can't hear you, Henry.

MR. EMRICH: What was that?

MS. WOODCOCK: We couldn't hear you.

MR. EMRICH: I'm sorry. That only dealt with the so-called legal opinion.

THE ARBITRATOR: Let me just clarify something in my notes here. I had written that you objected to 25 to 31. Is that incorrect?

MR. EMRICH: That's incorrect, yes.

THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. So, 25 to 31 is no objection?

MR. EMRICH: Hang on a minute. I have to find my notes.

MS. WOODCOCK: I have that Mr. Emrich objected to

25, and then 32.

MR. EMRICH: That's correct. 25 and 32 I objected to.

THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. Thank you for correcting my notes.

MR. EMRICH: No, thank you. All right.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. So, Dr. Petrella, looking at the January meeting, my understanding was that the project at issue had come before the master board; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And at that point it was tabled. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then it came before the master board in March of 2019. Correct?

A. Which was the subsequent meeting. Correct.

Q. Right. Now -- -

THE COURT REPORTER: Can't hear you.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. -- which is R-31 in front of you.

THE COURT REPORTER: We can't hear you.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. -- looking at the notes in front of you on R-31, Item No. 6 references a discussion: Vote, ARC review, Unit 407, interior blinds. Correct? Do you see that?

A. I see that.

Q. And can you tell me anything about that particular vote? You had indicated that you didn't believe that ARC was in place at that time?

A. You're breaking up, Counsel. As you turn your head away from the microphone, you're no longer --

Q. All right. I'm trying really hard not to do that. So, what I asked you is were you aware -- looking at those notes, those minutes, R-31, that there's a discussion about a vote from and architectural review committee -- or architectural review regarding Unit 407? I apologize for that misstatement.

A. Yes. I see that, but I would probably need to see prior minutes, because that may have been something that had been submitted to the ARC several months prior, and only now came up to the master board after the January 2019.

Q. So, what you're telling me is then, as far as you were concerned, ARC review was not in place at that time?

A. Correct.

Q. And that would have been true in March

of 2019. Correct?

A. Correct. And it was at that meeting that the discussion occurred whereby the master board members decided that it was time -- rather than having the master association make all these decisions, there would be a buffer, and that buffer would be the ARC.

Q. 2019 that was not yet in place. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the plans then that we're talking about here today for the walkway were then put in place or put before this board at that time. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. But there was no ARC review done at the time. Correct?

A. Stated.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Stated.

Q. So, that's a yes?

A. That is correct.

Q. Thank you, Doctor. Now, were you presented at that time with any kind of an application for architectural review?

A. No.

Q. Control review?

A. Did you ask another question, Counsel?

Q. Are you unable to answer that question?

A. I thought I did. I said no.

Q. I'm sorry?

MS. WOODCOCK: He said he did answer. Maybe you didn't hear him.

MR. EMRICH: I'm sorry. I didn't hear him. What did he say? He's kind of soft spoken.

MS. WOODCOCK: You can repeat your answer,

Dr. Petrella.

THE WITNESS: Repeat the question then so we can be certain that we're talking about the same point.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Was there any application for architectural review control filed by the building 200 board at that time?

A. No.

Q. But a plan did come before your board that you reviewed and commented on. Correct?

A. "You" meaning me personally, or "you" meaning the master board?

Q. Before the master board.

A. That discussion initiated in January, and it continued into March.

Q. But the matter was tabled in January. No official action was taken. Correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And in March of 2009(sic), the plans then were discussed with you; is that correct?

A. March of 2019 I think you mean.

Q. Yes. That's what I believe I said. Do you recall anything about that discussion?

A. Yes. There was a power point presentation given by Nancy Taylor and Dr. Bob White.

Q. What do you recall about that presentation?

A. Very extensive, very detailed, and it engendered a great deal of discussion.

Q. What was that discussion about?

A. We heard from several unit owners in the 200 building, you know, requesting that we seriously consider the proposition, you know, so far as even though they had bought units 20 years ago when they were in their 50s and 60s, that now they were in their 70s and '80s, and they were no longer able to access their units because elevators didn't go to their floors.

Q. Was the project that was brought before you and it was discussed and shown to you a project that would connect nine unit owners to the walkway?

A. You know, my recollection was that no specific number was given during that entire discussion. I do recall hearing nine units, because it's now subsequent to that risen multiple times. But do I have any specific memory of that number? No. I can say it was somewhere between six and nine.

Q. Were you aware that the 200 board had had a special meeting where the owners were asked to vote of 200 board -- of 200 condominium association on the project?

A. Perhaps not in the detail that you described. What the master board was informed at the time, that they had circulated a proxy, and the proxy passed with the required vote.

Q. Did you review that proxy at any time?

A. No, not personally.

Q. Did you review the minutes of the meeting -- of the special unit owners' meeting?

A. We were assured by management that everything was in order.

Q. So, is the answer to the question: You did not review the minutes?

A. I did not personally review the minutes.

Q. And at that time there was some notes made in the file that -- or in the minutes that the discussion was about the fact this building, this walkway, was going to be ADA compliant. Correct?

A. That I can't recall was in the initial description in January, but at the time of the voting in March, I think it was discussed that it may or may not be.

Q. So, again coming back to what I asked you, did you -- you would not have looked at the proxy or the minutes of the board from the 2018 meeting?

A. That is --

MS. WOODCOCK: Objection. Asked and answered.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Did you look at the letter that had been sent to the owners of 200 with regard to proxy vote?

MS. WOODCOCK: Mr. Emrich, can you please wait until the arbitrator rules on my objection or, I guess, withdraw your question so we have a clear record?

THE ARBITRATOR: What was the objection again? Was it asked and answered?

MS. WOODCOCK: Yes.

THE ARBITRATOR: Yes. It has been asked and answered, sir.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Did you review -- and I haven't asked this one. Did you review the letter that had been sent to the owners of building 200 with that proxy?

A. I was not even aware of the letter, and I don't think that's the master board's responsibility either.

Q. So, the answer is no? Your answer is no?

A. It's no to a question that I -- "you" is irrelevant.

THE ARBITRATOR: Dr. Petrella, this is the arbitrator.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE ARBITRATOR: This would go a lot faster and simpler if you just answer the question without commentary. If you know it, you know if. You don't, you don't. If you wouldn't mind, just answer the question that's asked, sir.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor.

THE ARBITRATOR: That's okay. It just makes life a lot easier for everyone. This way counsel doesn't have to repeat the question, and say whatever, whatever.

THE WITNESS: Understood.

THE ARBITRATOR: Go ahead, Mr. Emrich.

MR. EMRICH: Thank you, your Honor.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Now, Dr. Petrella, you mentioned something about the July meeting of the master board. Do you recall talking about that?

A. Only relative to my position as a director during that meeting.

Q. Now, if we put R-22 in front of you, those are the minutes from the July 11, 2019 master board. Correct?

MS. WARD: Can you repeat the exhibit you're referencing, Mr. Emrich?

MR. EMRICH: Yes. R-22. (Whereupon, the document was marked as Respondent's Exhibit No. 22 for identification.)

MS. WARD: Dr. Petrella, if you need me to scroll to the next page, just let me know and I'll keep scrolling for you. Okay?

THE WITNESS: Thank you. Okay. Okay. Okay.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. All right. Let's go back to the second page of that document. Going down to about two-thirds of the way down, Dr. Petrella, according to that document, the architectural review control committee had been reconstituted at the annual meeting in March; is that correct.

A. That's not correct.

Q. But that's what that says; is that correct?

A. That's what it says, but it wasn't as you could see from reading the March 2019 minutes.

Q. Okay. So, there would have been no master board activity then with regard to architectural review control that would have been voted upon at that meeting; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so, you indicated then that the first time that the architectural control committee was put in place would have been in August; is that correct?

A. Correct. (Whereupon, the document was marked as Respondent's Exhibit No. 34 for identification.)

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. If we go to R-34, that's the first time that the architectural review committee would have been in place; is that correct?

A. My recollection is that it was at this August 14th meeting. Yes.

Q. And as I look at that document, there's nothing on there or this particular plan or project was voted upon by the master board; is that correct?

A. I can't see all the minutes, so --

Q. All right. Well, why don't we take a minute for to you look at them before you answer that question.

MR. EMRICH: And, your Honor, might this be a good time to take a short break?

THE ARBITRATOR: Sure. No problem. Ten minutes? Five minute?

MR. EMRICH: That would be perfect. Thank you.

THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. I just want to let you know it's 3:00. (There was a break taken, after which the deposition was resumed as follows:)

MR. EMRICH: All right. Are we able to go back on, Doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Doctor, you've had an opportunity to look at

R-34, which are the minutes of August 14, 2019, of the master board; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. In reviewing those minutes, Doctor, is there any indication that the ARC committee was reconstituted at that meeting?

A. There is no written indication. Correct.

Q. So, and those are the official meeting minutes of the master board?

A. Correct. But there's a reason for that, if you'd care me to explain that.

Q. We'll let Ms. Woodcock ask you that. I just want to know if these minutes include anything that recreates the arc committee of the master board in the August meeting of 2019, of that master board as you indicated previously?

A. Other than the inference that all the committees had been re-established.

Q. Well, again we could go back to that -- those minutes, and if we look at page 3 -- put page 3 up on the screen. Committee reports. Is there anything in that committee reports where an architectural review committee was recreated?

A. It's not in the written report.

Q. So, no official recreation of the ARC committee. Correct?

A. No official --

MS. WOODCOCK: Objection.

THE WITNESS: -- recreation of the architectural review committee.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Did that happen -- when was the next master board meeting after the August 2019 master board meeting?

A. Probably September.

Q. Was -- (audio break) committee was voted on at that time?

THE COURT REPORTER: We missed the first part of your question.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Do you know, as you sit here today, whether or not the arc committee was voted on at that meeting?

A. There's certainly no vote required. Like I had said earlier, the ARC was an ad hoc committee that if indeed they had been submitted an application, then the committee would have been reformed.

Q. Was an application --

A. Again, I realize this answer becomes a little lengthy, and perhaps more than you care to hear, but the person who had historically chaired that committee had let me know that he no longer desired to do that; and that that was one of the reasons why that this was delayed in getting, you know, minutes in writing as to the disposition of that committee.

Q. I understand what you're saying. But again, there was no official reconstituting of that ARC review committee in August as you indicated it had been reinstituted?

MS. WOODCOCK: Objection. Asked and answered, and mischaracterizes his testimony.

THE ARBITRATOR: I'm going to sustain it. I mean, you know, you can just ask the guy when it was officially reinstituted.

MR. EMRICH: I've been trying to do that, your Honor.

MS. WOODCOCK: And he's answered that multiple times.

THE ARBITRATION: Yeah.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. When did you -- when was it officially reconstituted?

A. As needed. I guess that's -- in medicine we say PRN. It's an ad hoc committee, and would have been called upon to act when indeed there was an application submitted.

Q. Was there an application for this project for and ARC committee review ever submitted?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. And so, when in November of 20 -- (audio break).

THE COURT REPORTER: We lost you. Henry, you're on mute.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. When this matter came before the master board in November of 2020 -- November 24, 2020, that would still have been the case. Correct?

A. But again, I think that's irrelevant because the project had already been approved.

Q. I was asking about the ARC review committee control --

A. Again, (simultaneous speaking) control -- application to the arc for that project.

THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. Hold on a second here, gentlemen. We're not here to argue. Mr. Emrich is entitled to ask his questions, and if you could just please answer the question that he's asking. I'm sure Ms. Woodcock will have some follow-up, and she will redirect your testimony as appropriate. But I don't want to get into more arguments between counsel and witnesses. Would that be okay with you, sir?

THE WITNESS: That's fine with me, because I am not the argumentative type.

THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. So, if we can just please proceed in that manner, I'd appreciate it, because this hearing was only supposed to take four hours at the most. And here we are at about 3:30, and I'm worried about people getting in all the testimony. Okay?

THE WITNESS: All right.

THE ARBITRATOR: Thank you, sir.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Dr. Petrella, when we look at the November minutes, there was no vote taken by the master board on this project. Correct?

A. That is not correct.

Q. Well, let's put --

MS. WARD: We can't hear you, Henry.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Let's look at Exhibit 24. Put that up on the screen.

Ms. Ward: P-24 or R-24?

MR. EMRICH: R-24. (Whereupon, the document was marked as Respondent's Exhibit No. 24 for identification.)

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Looking at that document, Doctor, was any vote taken on this project that day by the master board?

A. The master board doesn't show the vote, no. But I'm only looking on page one. I've got another copy here on my desk that I'm looking at, and I don't see where a vote is reflected. But indeed I have fairly acute recall on that particular meeting, and I had said at that meeting -- and I believe it's confirmed in your transcripts that you submitted of the recording, that indeed we took -- I felt more comfortable if we just revoted on the fact that all the conditions were met for the previous approval.

Q. You refer back to the July and the March of 2019 meetings. Correct?

A. Well, specifically the March.

Q. Okay. And earlier you testified that no architectural review control vote was given at that time -- approval was given at that time?

A. I did.

Q. And there would have been no vote as we looked here today in July for architectural review control. Correct?

A. In July, no. Correct.

Q. Thank you. I have no further questions of you on that particular exhibit. I just have a couple more questions, and I'll be done. Dr. Petrella, do you recall an issue with regard to certain sea grape bushes that the petitioner Mr. Meiresonne had filed a complaint about?

A. Yes.

Q. (Audio break.)

A. I can't hear you, Counsel.

Q. What do you recall about that, sir?

A. He and I had several conversations about that, and I -- you know, assured him that I would take whatever action I could to address his concerns.

Q. And what was that -- what action did you take?

A. I talked to the adjacent building president, and asked what their plans were for trimming back the landscaping.

Q. And why did you do that?

A. That was at his request.

Q. Did they do that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you recall having told Mr. Meiresonne to submit an application to the architectural control committee regarding that particular complaint?

A. Yes. It's either he or I did it.

Q. And why was that, sir?

A. Because I think -- and this maybe also reflected in some of the minutes, that all the communal living conditions here, we need to respect each other's rights and have a neighborly attitude between the buildings. This had been going on for several months. We tried to get the buildings to resolve that between the 2 and 300 buildings. And I, you know, thought that progress had been made, but apparently he wasn't satisfied with the results. So, we said we would do a formal submission to the ARC, which we did. And I believe you've been provided with that report.

Q. And that particular submission was denied; is that correct?

A. No. I think the ARC agreed that all efforts, you know, should be made to trim back the trees as, you know reasonably possible. But you understand, this is subjective. What the ARC perceived perhaps was not something that Mr. Meiresonne perceived as being acceptable. But again, the 300 building did again trim their vegetation back.

Q. But as far as the ARC committee of the master board, they denied his complaint?

A. I don't believe so. No. I think they instructed the ARC to proceed with their findings. MR. EMRICH: Hang on a minute, your Honor. I'm looking for --

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Dr. Petrella, did -- who was in charge of the ARC committee at the time that that sea grape complaint was made?

A. I'm sorry. Repeat the question, please.

Q. Who was in charge of the ARC committee at the time of that?

A. Vida Chenair (phonetic), I believe.

Q. And would you agree with me, sir, that whoever would put one of those trees into their landscaping could conceivably cause a visual obstruction to someone who was in an adjacent building; is that correct?

A. I missed the salient point of your question.

Q. Someone in an adjacent building who is looking towards the building where the sea grape has been planted could conceivably have a concern about the presence of that sea grape tree obstructing their view; is that correct?

A. Certainly.

Q. And it certainly could be considered a nuisance to that person in the adjacent building. Correct?

A. Again, as I had said earlier, it's subjective; but conceivably could, certainly.

Q. When the -- Mr. Meiresonne's patio was presented to the master board for review, as well as to his own building, he had to submit a -- he had to submit an architectural review committee -- control committee request as well; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And at the time of that particular application, there was a determination made that the project was not going to be approved by the architectural review committee because it impacted the view of the adjacent properly owner, building 300. Correct?

A. No, that is not correct.

Q. Let me see if I can find -- 23.

MS. WARD: Mr. Emrich, you're cutting out. You'll want to repeat your question.

MR. EMRICH: Exhibit R-23.

MS. WARD: All right. (Whereupon, the document was marked as Respondent's Exhibit No. 23 for identification.)

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. According to that document -- -

MS. WARD: We can't hear you.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. -- 2019 board of directors meeting of the master board; is that correct?

THE COURT REPORTER: I missed the first part of your question.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Is Exhibit 23 the minutes of the November 4, 2019, master board meeting?

A. They appear to be, yes.

Q. The issue (audio break).

THE COURT REPORTER: Can't hear you.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. -- particular patio had come before it; is that correct?

A. I'm only getting the second half of your question.

Q. Was that -- at that meeting, was the ARC review application (audio break).

THE COURT REPORTER: Can't hear you.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. -- master board?

A. You're not audible, Counselor. Sorry.

Q. All right. Is that better?

A. Yes. Much better.

Q. At the time of the November 4th, 2019, meeting, was the ARC committee review report done by your committee -- your architectural review committee regarding that patio. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. At that time you indicated -- the committee indicated to you, according to your minutes, that several -- that the basis for the objection in opposition of the ARC committee to the patio was that it possibly objected(sic) the view of an adjacent property owner. Correct?

A. You know, I don't recall that. There were several objections, but I don't recall that as being one of them. I think it was asked: Did the neighboring units object to that? That question was asked. But I don't think that was an objection by the ARC or the board.

Q. Could you look at the third page of Exhibit 23, and read the third paragraph of the section entitled: Arb application for Unit 213?

A. Third paragraph states, "Ron Jacobson reported on the ARC recommendation to deny the application. He emphasized that the scope of the review of the ARC was limited, and that the role of the -- correction -- ARC was not unanimous, was several opponents of the application relying upon their concern that the patio would have a negative impact on the adjacent owner's water view."

Q. So, that was one of the reasons for the refusal of the ARC committee to approve the project. Correct?

A. Because it's written here, I'll say yes. But, in fact, I had conversations with the chairman of the committee at that time, and I think I made my opinion known to the general membership that the ARC at this time had probably overstepped its mandate.

Q. Thank you. I have no further questions, Dr. Petrella.

MS. WOODCOCK: Dr. Petrella, I just have a few brief questions for you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

By: Ms. Woodcock

Q. Mr. Emrich was asking you questions about the August 2019 meeting where you testified that the ARC committed was reinstituted, and you said that you had been -- you said that there was a reason that the meeting minutes did not mention the ARC committee. What was that reason that you wanted to say?

A. Simply that the ARC is an ad hoc committee, and they're only active once an application has been submitted either by the board of directors or by, certain cases, the individual themselves. But they're -- as delineated explicitly in the July 2019 minutes, those are the steps that need to be taken for ARC review. And that's why, as I just commented to counselor, that the committee was somewhat, you know, rebuked by me in the November meeting, because they did not abide by those guidelines.

Q. After the ARC committee was reinstituted by yourself when you became president, who are the members of the ARC committee?

A. It's changed since that time. The ad hoc committee at one time was made up of the presidents of the various buildings. The problem we had was certain presidents never attended. And the other problem is we were having to listen to the same opinions of the same people being that they were either board presidents -- or rather board members and/or presidents of their buildings.

So, we, in October, had suggested when we were notified that our chairman was going to resign from that committee, you know, once this last issue had been addressed, we had strongly recommended that we change the makeup of that, and have the members be non-board members, non-master association directors.

Q. In January 2019, are you aware of whether the Club at La Peninsula had a form application for members to fill out to request alterations?

A. Being that I was a director only at that time and not and officer, I suspect there was a form that was held by management. But, you know, I would have to -- I admit I only more recently within the last year have become aware that there was indeed an ARC form. Did that answer what you were asking me?

Q. Yes, sir. So, you said that the presidents of the associations -- of the several associations had been the members of the architectural review committee. Who are the members of the board of the Club at La Peninsula?

A. Each building has a representative. So, I can enumerate the individuals if you'd like. But each building, which is in each different association, is represented by one individual.

Q. And do you know how that individual representative is chosen?

A. Through elections. The term is two years, and through a formal submission of an application. And then at our annual member meeting, proxies are collected and votes counted.

Q. From the Club at La Peninsula's perspective, did the 200 La Peninsula Condominium Association do what was required of it by the master association to have the walkway project approved and constructed?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm going to show you one of the photographs that's part of composite Exhibit 28. I just want to ask you a particular question about it. Well, a couple questions about it.

Do you recognize what's shown in this photograph?

A. Yes.

Q. In this -- what is shown in this photograph?

A. What is shown in the photograph?

Q. Yes.

A. That is the water side of the 200 building. I can see the retention pond is off to the right. The, you know, various landscaping, etc., etc.

Q. In the various landscaping shown in this photograph, do you see -- is the sea grape tree that the petitioner complained about depicted in this photograph?

A. I'm going to be honest with you. I think the see grape tree -- one of them, because I know there is a large tree that is -- it's probably been there for 25 years, is actually on common property of the 300 building adjacent to it. I think that's Mr. Meiresonne's biggest complaint. But there's -- as you look adjacent to the retention pond where there looks like there's wild grass off to the right there, that I believe is the sea grape bush that he's referring to and complaining about it -- not currently but potentially obstructing his view in future once it matures.

MS. WOODCOCK: I don't have any other questions for Dr. Petrella.

MR. EMRICH: I have one follow-up, your Honor.

THE ARBITRATOR: Yes.

MR. EMRICH: Regarding the sea grape tree. I'd like him to look at Photograph No. 12 of P-7. If we put that -- put up photograph 12 of P-7 on the board.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

By: Mr. Emrich

Q. Dr. Petrella, are you able to see those two photographs?

A. I am, sir.

Q. Is the sea grape tree that you mentioned as being the larger tree the sea grape tree depicted in the left photograph?

A. It is.

Q. And that is one of the trees that he had complained about as it grew -- as it grew bigger. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And as you indicated, you talked to that board, the 300 board, about trimming that back. Correct?

A. No. I spoke to the president of that board.

Q. And that is because of the fact that you believe that it, in fact, was a nuisance for Mr. Meiresonne. Correct?

A. I wouldn't be judgmental. I would say that I think he had a reasonable concern.

Q. Thank you. And the picture in the right photograph of that document is the sea grape tree that we talked about being planted down to the left of the retention pond. Correct?

A. No. That's a different one.

Q. That's a different one. So, he was concerned about that as well as it grew taller?

A. Again, I'm not sure exactly which one. I know the big tree, certainly. And, you know, with Hurricane Irma we had construction of a new seawall. All that occurred at the same time. Some of these were replacements as to what was destroyed by both construction and Hurricane Irma.

Q. And you -- and one of the concerns that he had expressed was the rapid growth that the sea grape trees grow at; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you've indicated that his complaint was reasonable, as I think you indicated. Correct?

A. On certainly on the large tree, yes. But I might add here, too, that that large tree has now been significantly cut back compared to what is in this photo.

Q. Thank you. Now, I just have a couple last questions, Doctor.

Had you ever expressed, as the president of the board, when this 200 walkway proposal came

before you, as to whether or not it constituted a

material change of the condominium properties that were

part of the master board association?

MS. WOODCOCK: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE ARBITRATOR: Sustained.

MR. EMRICH: I have no further questions.

THE ARBITRATOR: Stay on this picture. I have

questions. Ms. Woodcock, do you have any questions?

MS. WOODCOCK: No, your Honor.

THE ARBITRATOR: Okay.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

By: The Arbitrator

Q. Doctor, this is the arbitrator. I'm going to need a little bit more of your time if you don't mind.

A. Please proceed.

Q. Okay. We're on Plaintiff's Exhibit 7, page 12, and I'm looking at two pictures here. Do you still see them?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. The picture on the left, that's a sea grape tree?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that tree part of the original plantings at the association?

A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Q. And what about the one on the right?

A. That I can't tell you, your Honor. That's either a replacement of post Irma, post construction, or it was a rehabbed sea grape tree that has been there, you know, for some length of time. I can't answer that.

THE ARBITRATOR: If someone could please put on the screen Petitioner's Exhibit 9, which --

MS. WARD: I'll take care of that. (Whereupon, the document was marked as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9 for identification.)

THE ARBITRATOR: And go to page 12. If counsel will please state for the record that this is, in fact, the master amended declaration in effect as of May 27, 2015? Mr. Emrich?

MR. EMRICH: It is, your Honor.

THE ARBITRATOR: Ms. Woodcock?

MS. WOODCOCK: Yes, your Honor.

THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. So, there's no disagreement about that this bit master association -- and this would be in effect as of 2018, Mr. Emrich?

MR. EMRICH: Yes, your Honor.

THE ARBITRATOR: Ms. Woodcock?

MS. WOODCOCK: Yes, your Honor.

BY THE ARBITRATOR:

Q. Okay. Doctor, if you would please read to

yourself Provision 6.1?

A. Okay.

Q. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, sir, you've

been on the master association board since March

of 2018?

A. Correct.

Q. So, do you agree that as of your time on the board, these would be the -- 6.1 would be the governing documents that would reflect the governing documents that were in effect regarding the architectural control committee?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Doctor, to your knowledge, you said that -- if I can paraphrase you -- it's an ad hoc committee?

A. Yes. Let me correct that. Now over the last few months we've made it more formal, because the new chairman has taken that position very serious. So, they've asked that they report at each meeting.

Q. Thank you. Given the fact that you've been on the master board since 2018, and Section 6 of the master declaration covers the ARC committee, based on your knowledge of the association -- and I mean master association, is there any provision that you can point me to that makes it an ad hoc committee as opposed to, say, a mandatory committee?

A. I believe there is, but I can't point you to it. It's optional. We are not mandated to have an ARC.

MS. WOODCOCK: And just for the record, this Provision 6.1 has no reference to and architectural review committee.

BY THE ARBITRATOR:

Q. Well, Doctor, assuming Ms. Woodcock is correct, then how are people supposed to -- how are associations supposed to modify structures if there's no committee to approve that modification?

A. The master association makes those determinations. It effectively all comes down to the rule of the master association. If we choose to intervene, we can. If we choose not to, we also can. I think that we be accused of selective, you know, enforcement if we varied.

But, you know, your Honor, you have to understand, this was a war zone back then after Irma and after the construction from a new seawall. We had 2800 linear feet of seawall put in here. The place was a disaster. So, we as a master association, could not oversee every single daffodil that got planted to replace the previous landscaping.

Q. I respect your answer, sir. I'm not talking -- my questions are not directed towards the sea grapes.

A. Okay. Okay. I thought that's what --

Q. They are directed towards the walkway. So, with that predicate, that's where they're going, sir.

A. Okay.

Q. Okay? If you take a look at Provision 6.2 on the next page, and read that to yourself, sir.

A. Okay.

Q. If, as you testified before previously, the ARC committee was an ad hoc committee, then -- or is not actually implemented by an ARC committee or -- there is nothing in the documents that form that committee, then how would you explain who prosecutes violations based on Section 6.2?

A. Well, the management company is responsible for enforcement, but it's the master board that makes that decision.

Q. Well, since the master association shall have the right to legal proceedings to enforce compliance. Right?

A. Right.

Q. But you're saying the management company makes the decision?

A. Yes, sir. No. They don't make the decision. They prosecute the decision. So, in other words, if we perceive a violation, or even if the management company perceives the violation, then by our declarations, the first response comes from management.

Q. Okay.

A. And this can be in the form of certified letter, a letter from an attorney, something like that. But that is initiated by management.

Q. Thank you. Just so I have a few facts straight, you were on the board of the master board as of 3/18?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And at some point after 3/18, the directors or the board members of building 200 brought to the master board to vote on the walkway; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember offhand what -- approximately what month and year that was?

A. It was first brought up in January of 2019.

Q. And that's when the master board voted to okay the walkway project?

A. No. That occurred in March 2019.

Q. Folks, Doctor, I'm going to need another half an hour of your time, but as I told counsel before, I've got my heating guy here. He's at the door. I just got to talk to him for five minutes, because I'm freezing. (There was a break taken, after which the deposition was resumed as follows:)

THE ARBITRATOR: I'm sorry for the delay. Everyone is on mute.

MS. WOODCOCK: Yes, sir.

THE ARBITRATOR: I just had a couple more questions. I apologize for the delay.

BY THE ARBITRATOR:

Q. Okay. Doctor, this is the arbitrator again.

A. Sorry.

Q. Sorry for the delay. We're back in March of 2019. The 200 board brought the plans for the walkway to a vote by the master association and counsel.

A. Correct. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you recall if that was the nine or six units?

A. I don't think a number that I recall was ever clearly stipulated.

Q. To your knowledge, did the master board evaluate the plans brought to them by the 200 board in conformance with Section 6.1?

A. Yes. I believe that on the Power Point presentation in March was very instructive. And it was quite a lengthy meeting with lots of questions and answers. Understand that this was the second go-around. We had already heard most of this in January.

Q. Now, at some point -- and you'll have to fill in the date for me, sir, as best you can you -- did the 200 board come back to the master board and ask again for approval of the project? And by "project," I mean the walkway.

A. No.

Q. So, the one time the master board approved the walkway project was March 2019?

A. Correct. May I interject something, your Honor?

Q. Go ahead.

A. In January, even though the minutes are pretty skinny, it was presented then and asked -- a vote was asked then, and we thought that was premature, and had told Dr. White to return with more information. And that's why this prolonged discussion at the March meeting occurred.

MR. EMRICH: Your Honor, I'm going to object to that testimony. It's not in conformity with the minutes of that meeting.

THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. So, sue him for not having accurate minutes.

MR. EMRICH: Your Honor, with all due respect, the board acts through its minutes and what it approves as part of its actions at the board, and there's no indication that that happened. He said it was tabled previously.

MS. WOODCOCK: You're talking about two different meetings.

THE ARBITRATOR: I beg your pardon, Ms. Woodcock?

MS. WOODCOCK: I said we're talking about two different meetings.

THE ARBITRATOR: Well --

MS. WOODCOCK: The meeting -- the vote to approve was in March.

BY THE ARBITRATOR:

Q. That's your testimony, Doctor? The vote to approve the walkway project was in March?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. ARBITRATOR: So, Counsel, when you write your proposed order, you can go back to the minutes, and if they're inconsistent with the testimony, you can bring that point to my attention.

MR. EMRICH: Thank you.

THE ARBITRATOR: How's that sound as a remedy?

MR. EMRICH: I think that's fine, your Honor.

THE ARBITRATOR: Okay.

BY THE ARBITRATOR:

Q. Doctor, there's a gazillion exhibits here. Do you have access to the exhibits?

A. Yes. I can dig them out.

Q. I'm just basically looking for you to identify for me the Power Point presentation either at the January or the March 2019 board meeting.

A. There was no Power Point presentation in January. The Power Point presentation took place in March of 2019. And I believe all of those -- well, not -- there was subsequent. The renderings that I had asked to be made part of the November 24th, 2020, minutes reflected what was presented at the March 12, 2019, board meeting.

Q. I'm just trying to match an exhibit number up to what you testified to, sir. So, we're talking about

R-2?

A. Yes.

THE ARBITRATOR: All right. I don't have any more

questions for the witness. Mr. Emrich, any follow-ups?

MR. EMRICH: Yeah. I do have a couple, your

Honor. You okay with that?

THE ARBITRATOR: Yeah. Go ahead.

RE-REDIRECT EXAMINATION

By: Mr. Emrich

Q. Dr. Petrella, I'm going to ask you to look at

P -- Exhibit P-10. Putting that up on the screen.

MS. WOODCOCK: I'm just going to object to any questioning about this exhibit to Dr. Petrella as he earlier testified that he had not seen this letter.

THE ARBITRATOR: He testified he hadn't seen it?

MS. WOODCOCK: Correct.

THE ARBITRATOR: Well, let's just see where the questioning guess, and if he hasn't seen it, he hasn't seen it. If he hasn't seen it, I don't think he can answer questions about it, but let's see what he says. Okay?

MS. WOODCOCK: Understood.

THE ARBITRATOR: Counsel, go ahead.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. I think he's reviewing it. Have you seen this letter?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. Well, here, let me clarify that. I've seen this now during discovery, but prior to the arbitration I have not.

Q. That's fair. So, you had not seen this letter prior to the vote of the master board that you referenced. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. I'm going to have you look at Exhibit 11. Had you seen that document prior to the vote of the master board? P-11.

A. No, sir.

Q. And that, as we look at it, was the proxy that was voted on. Correct?

A. That I can't attest to.

Q. I'm going to ask you to look at P-13. Have you seen that prior to the master board meeting?

MS. WOODCOCK: Your Honor, I'm just going to object to the questioning about these exhibits as Mr. -- Dr. Petrella previously testified that they were not provided, he has not seen them.

THE ARBITRATOR: Well, if he hasn't seen them, I don't know what weight they're even going to be given regarding his --

MR. EMRICH: Your Honor, just trying to speed things up, because he's already testified he hasn't seen these, and we're asking him basically to re-testify again he hasn't seen them.

THE ARBITRATOR: Well, this is all repetition as to things he hasn't seen?

MR. EMRICH: I don't know that it's repetition, because I haven't asked him to look at these previously, Judge.

THE ARBITRATOR: If he hasn't seen them, and they're from the 200 board, really what relevance are they as to his testimony?

MR. EMRICH: Well, let me ask that question then as a follow-up once I've asked if he has not seen these.

MS. WOODCOCK: But it's already asked. You didn't show him the document, but you asked him if he had seen them.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Dr. Petrella?

A. Yes, sir.

THE ARBITRATOR: Go ahead. Just make it quick.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Dr. Petrella, as you sit here and as you sat on that master board in March of 2019, you did not know what action the board of directors of 200 building had taken with regard to this project. Did you?

A. That's not true.

Q. Well, you indicated earlier when the arbitrator asked you whether you knew whether or not this was six -- whether or not six units or nine units were being put before the board for approval, and you said you didn't recall; is that correct?

MS. WOODCOCK: Objection. Mischaracterizes his testimony.

THE ARBITRATOR: What he testified to, I wrote it down. Counsel can ask the question, but I know what my notes say.

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. I've asked the question: Do you know whether or not the project that was approved by the master board was for six or nine units being affected or involved with the walkway project?

A. I think I had earlier said I think it was up to nine.

Q. Up to nine?

A. The way it was described. I'm not sure whether a specific number was indicated. What they dis were the end units, and that's how the presentation went.

MR. EMRICH: I have no further questions, your

Honor. I'm not going to argue with him.

THE ARBITRATOR: Ms. Woodcock?

MS. WOODCOCK: No questions. No more questions for Dr. Petrella.

THE ARBITRATOR: Okay, Doctor. Thank you very much for your time. You're excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. (Whereupon, the witness was excused.)

THE ARBITRATOR: Who's next?

MR. EMRICH: Petitioner Mike Meiresonne.

MS. WOODCOCK: Your Honor, if we may, can we go off the record for a minute to talk about housekeeping?

THE ARBITRATOR: Sure. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

THE ARBITRATION: What we're going to do, it's 4:39. I'll let you folks chat tomorrow, whenever, and somebody can reset and re-notice the remainder of the hearing, at which point both counsel could have plenty of time with Mr. Meiresonne, and Ms. Woodcock can present her part of the case, too, and have plenty of time. How does that sound?

MS. WOODCOCK: Very good, your Honor.

Thank you for your time.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir, your Honor.

MS. WOODCOCK: Your Honor, may I just -- I don't have any questions for Mr. Meiresonne, but I just want to clarify with you, you've asked some questions about the renderings to Mr. Meiresonne --

ARBITRATOR: Right.

MS. WOODCOCK: -- about what they show and things like that when he was not present or around the community at the time, and we heard ample testimony from Ms. Taylor at the -- or the first part of the hearing about what those renderings were. I just wanted to make sure your Honor recalls that and are aware of that.

ARBITRATOR: I think I know where you're going, and if I could just paraphrase it. I believe that Ms. Taylor, according to my notes, called it the conceptual -- it was a concept, is that where you're 19· going?

MS. WOODCOCK: Yes, your Honor.

ARBITRATOR: Okay. So I get where you're going with that.

MS. WOODCOCK: Thank you, your Honor.

ARBITRATOR: Okay. We're done,

Mr. Emerich, with your part of the case?

EXAMINATION

DR. DAVID PETRELLA

BY MS. WOODCOCK:

Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Petrella. Have you had any conversations with Mr. Meiresonne regarding Sea Grape trees?

A. Yes.

Q. How many?

A. Multiple.

Q. When you say "multiple", can you give an estimate of two to five --

A. Three to five.

Q. Do you recall when you had those conversations with Mr. Meiresonne?

A. I'm sorry, was that when?

Q. Yes.

A. Probably in the year 2020, primarily, and then again in the spring of 2021.

Q. Dr. Petrella, what do you recall about the nature of those conversations with Mr. Meiresonne?

A. Mr. Meiresonne was concerned about the obstruction of his view. On one occasion, he actually asked me, and I complied, to come into his unit and look out at his view and see for myself if, indeed, his view was compromised.

Q. And what did you see on that occasion?

A. You know, it's so very subjective insofar as the large tree that is in the 300 common area could obstruct part of his view of the Gulf, not of the river, not of the extension of Tigertail, but of the Gulf, and you could not see the Gulf from all areas of his living room. So I commented and joked with him a little bit about that saying, "Yes, it's not a hundred percent, but, you know, you have to take into consideration the location of the unit", which is tucked back as it is.

On other occasions, pointed out, and I think we testified about this at our last session, and the other portions, as long as they were maintained, and I think what Mike's concern was that they would not be properly maintained and they could potentially block his view, but at that time, they did not obstruct his view. The only one that partially obstructed his view was the large tree on the 300 Building common area property that's been there, I think, since the construction of that building.

Q. Do you recall having any conversations with Mr. Meiresonne about the 200 Building walkway?

A. Yes.

Q. How many conversations did you have with Mr. Meiresonne --

A. I had two --

Q. -- about the walkway?

A. Two that I specifically recall.

Q. Let me ask the question before you answer, Dr. Petrella.

Okay?

A. Sure.

Q. Do you recall when those conversations were?

A. Yes. The first was in early December or late November of 2020, and the second was later on in December. I can't give you the exact date, but I'm going to say it was probably right before the holidays.

Q. And what were the nature of those conversations?

A. The initial conversation was that he was not able to attend the 11/24/20 Master Board meeting, and that he had not been notified, and I went through the procedure with him, well, you know, there's a notice, it's posted, and a -- although not required, a broadcast e-mail was sent out by the management company, and he had told me at the time what he thought happened was that they sent it to one of his other e-mail address that he did not check on a regular basis, and he thought that's where that had ended up.

We then got on the discussion about the contents of that 11/24/20 meeting and the whole issue of the walkway, and I had told him at that time that if he wanted to, he could -- he was approved to hook up to the walkway. He could still be part of that project, and actually, I was a bit surprised that he acted as though he was surprised, and he sounded very encouraging and said, "Oh, I didn't know that I could still do that and, okay", he was going to pursue that.

The second conversation I had with him was approximately two, maybe three weeks later at the most, and at that time, I asked him how things were going, and he said he decided not to participate with the project, and nothing more was said after that.

We exchanged some e-mails in the spring of 2021, but I couldn't tell you what the content of those were offhand.

Q. Thank you, Dr. Petrella.

Did the 200 Building or the 200 Association follow all of the steps required by the Master Association in getting approval for the walkway project?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know whether the Master Association sought legal counsel about the walkway project?

A. Relative to -- well, the simple answer is "yes".

Q. Do you know what type of counsel was asked of the counsel? That was a terrible question. Let me reask it again.

Do you know what was asked of the Master Association's attorney?

ARBITRATOR: Hang on a second. You may be asking the witness to disclose attorney/client privilege here. If Mr. Emrich wants to go into that, I'm going to let him go into it.

MS. WOODCOCK: Understood, your Honor, and 7· we are asked -- we're limiting the disclosure of the 8 attorney/client privilege communication to this 9· particular request and situation regarding the walkway.

ARBITRATOR: Got that. I just want to make sure that you know that if you ask this question about, you know, what counsel told them or what transpired with counsel about the walkway, that I'm going to have to let Mr. Emrich go into that.

MS. WOODCOCK: Understood, your Honor.

ARBITRATOR: Okay, just want to make sure.

MR. EMRICH: Let me -- may I be heard on this, your Honor? Because one of the things that concerns me here is that prior to this hearing, Ms. Woodcock provided what extensively was this counsel's opinion on this. It was a one-sentence statement. There was nothing that was submitted to the attorney in support of that, as to what the facts were as to what the specific requests were, and so I don't think I'm in a position to be able to adequately cross-examination him if he's allowed to answer that.

ARBITRATOR: Well, if he's allowed -- she's asking the question, okay? And based on what you just said, then you can ask him. Okay, it was one sentence, but then what went into -- what was the basis for it. Was there anything else said. I mean, I question everybody as soon as the question was asked, okay? So I basically said you're opening the door, you're opening up a can of worms here. So as the cross-examiner, you're going to get a lot of latitude from me about what was said, what went on, things like that. That's why I brought up the question. That's why I cautioned everyone. I don't know how much fairer I can be. Now that this has been heard, Ms. Woodcock, do you still want to ask this question?

MS. WOODCOCK: No, your Honor, I'm going to withdraw the question. We're not going to get into it.

ARBITRATOR: Now, the last question I had that he answered was, "Yes, they sought legal counsel on the walkway project". You're withdrawing your previous question?

MS. WOODCOCK: Yes, your Honor.

ARBITRATOR: Okay, please go on. CONTINUING BY MS. WOODCOCK:

Q. Dr. Petrella, in your last -- or when Mr. Emrich was questioning you regarding in the last hearing, there was mention of amendment to the Master Association documents. Are you aware of an amendment to the Master Association documents?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that amendment related to or what is it about?

A. Prohibitive vehicles in the community.

Q. And when that was made, if you recall?

A. I think it was recorded in August of 2020, but it was passed by the Board of Directors I believe in May of 2020.

Q. Does the amendment that was being referenced in the first part of this hearing, is unrelated to the Master Board power or mannerisms of approving changes to the sub-association structures, correct?

A. The answer is, "yes", I want to make sure I understand your question. The amendment was only a change in our rules and regulations and that affected what we call prohibitive vehicles on the property.

Q. On the March 12th, 2019, Master Association meeting -- MR. EMRICH: Which meeting, Ms. Woodcock? MS. WOODCOCK: March 12th, 2019.

CONTINUING BY MS. WOODCOCK:

Q. At that meeting, were requirements put in place of what the 200 Building was required to do to meet approval with the Master Association?

A. Yes.

Q. And what were those requirements?

A. The requirements were approved engineered drawings that the renderings that were presented on March 12th, 2019 would -- the project would reasonably be similar to those renderings and that all county permits and approvals had to be obtained.

Q. And did the 200 Building comply with those requirements?

A. Yes.

Q. And the November 24th, 2020, meeting, was the meeting notice posted in the normal place that the Master Association could put meeting minutes?

A. Yes, otherwise management would not have proceeded with the meeting.

Q. Did you hear Mr. Meiresonne's testimony earlier that when he went to look at the board within an hour after the meeting, that it was -- the notice was no longer there, it was not there? Did --

A. I heard that --

Q. -- you hear that testimony?

A. I heard that --

Q. Let me ask the question, Dr. Petrella.

A. Sorry, I thought you were done.

Q. Okay. Did you hear that testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of why potentially that notice was not on the board when Mr. Meiresonne went to see?

A. Because I think we're talking about two different things. The board of statute is, as you know requires posting of meeting notice 48 hours at least prior to the Board meeting. That notice has traditionally been posted on the outdoor protected meeting notice board at the clubhouse, which is kind of a center part of the entire community.

The additional notices, just like the broadcast e-mails, are issued as a courtesy to the membership, but it's not required. Now, I don't know what happened in the 200 Building on their bulletin board, why -- or if we did or didn't have a notice there.

MS. WOODCOCK: I don't have any other questions for Dr. Petrella.

ARBITRATOR: Mr. Emrich?

MR. EMRICH: Yes, I have a couple questions, your Honor.

EXAMINATION

BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Dr. Petrella, I wasn't quite clear on your answer to the question as to whether the tree that -- the Sea Grapes tree adjacent to Building 300 blocked or interfered with the Gulf of -- Mike Meiresonne's view of the Gulf of Mexico or not. Did it or did the not?

A. I would say it partially did if you were seated in a certain position in his living area.

Q. Did you at any time go out on the patio and look?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. So clearly, you would have been looking right down towards the Gulf and that tree would have been right between the patio and the Gulf, correct?

A. Portions of the patio were, indeed, obstructed by the tree.

Q. Okay, thank you. Now, you also indicated that you felt that the 200 Board has followed all of the appropriate steps here for this particular -- the approval of this particular project, the original approval, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What are those steps?

MS. WOODCOCK: Objection, asked and answered. That's exactly the question I asked Dr. Petrella.

MR. EMRICH: I'm asking him to tell us.

ARBITRATOR: You asked him if they followed the steps, he said "yes". Now he's asking what steps were followed? Go ahead. Mr. Emrich, go ahead.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. What steps were followed?

A. We obtained confirmation that the 200 Building Board had building approval to proceed with the project. When the project was then presented at the Master Association, not only the Board members, but we let the community participate into question and answer summary, and we approved the project as proposed with the parameters that I described to Ms. Woodcock.

Q. So we're taking about two separate Board meetings where this approval came up for a vote; is that correct, before the Master Board?

A. No, the --

Q. There was a March --

A. I'm sorry.

MS. WOODCOCK: Let him answer, please, Mr. Emrich.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH

Q. Okay, go ahead.

A. Technically, that's not correct.

Q. What do you mean, "technically, it's not correct"? Is it correct in some respect?

A. It's correct in some respects because the project approval was granted on March 12th, 2019.

Q. And so you're indicating that that was based on what was approved by the 200 Board, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. As you sit here today, do you know specifically what was approved by the 200 Board on June 26 of 2018?

A. What I knew is that they had a proxy that satisfied the requirements of their declaration.

Q. So that was going to be my next question. As far as you were concerned, whatever had been passed by the 200 Board was based on the proxy that had been submitted by the Board to the members, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And so your expectation, then, at least on March 12th, was that that particular proxy was based on a certain set of plans; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And, again, did you ever review those plans at the March 12th meeting?

A. As I said earlier, the renderings were presented and the initial engineered drawings, and that's the reason why we put the restrictions on that it was an approval, but an approval pending satisfaction of the restrictions that we had also approved.

Q. So, again, looking at -- if we look at R-3 and we look at the photograph or the renderings from R-3, if we put those up on the board, the renderings.

MS. WARD: You said that was R-3?

MR. EMRICH: R-3.

MS. WARD: This is what you're talking about, you want these computer-generated things?

MR. EMRICH: Yes.

MS. WARD: Okay. They're up there.

MS. WOODCOCK: Nothing's being shared.

MR. EMRICH: I'm not seeing them.

MS. WARD: Oh, I'm sorry.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Does this look like the renderings that you're referring to?

A. Yeah. You know, I couldn't swear this was every line detail the same, but it's very similar, let's, I guess, agree to that.

Q. And correct me if I'm wrong, but these renderings show a walkway along the bottom -- or along the ground level of each side of the building; is that correct?

A. I guess, yes. I mean, my interpretation of the drawing, yes.

Q. So your review that was made on March 12th of 2019 would have been based on plans that included a walkway along the ground floor of either side of that building that would connect the bottom units or ground floor units to the elevator as well, correct?

A. It was not a prerequisite, if that's what you're asking.

Q. Well, I'm asking you what the plans were that were submitted that you based a vote on, sir.

MS. WOODCOCK: I'm going to object.

THE WITNESS: This is only part --

MS. WOODCOCK: Hold on, Dr. Petrella. I'm going to object, this is asked and answered in Dr. Petrella's primary testimony.

ARBITRATOR: Let me look at my notes. You're saying the first part of the hearing?

MS. WOODCOCK: Yes, sir.

ARBITRATOR: What's the meeting date we're presently talking about?

MR. EMRICH: We're talking, your Honor, about the March 12th, 2019, Board meeting that he's testified to the plans were brought before the Board for the Master Board for their initial approval and that he testified all of the steps were followed by the Board, and that's what I'm trying to understand exactly what those steps were, and he's explaining what was presented and what was approved.

ARBITRATOR: My notes from -- my notes from the prior hearing do talk about the 3/'19 meeting, but it's talking about the ARC wasn't in effect at the time. He was not present with the review at this time, and the March 2019 (inaudible) by Nancy Taylor. To the extent we had to bifurcate this hearing, I'm inclined to let him answer the question in light of the fact that he testified just today on Direct Examination that the steps were followed, okay? But, Mr. Emrich, just talk to him about the steps that were followed --

MR. EMRICH: I am, your Honor.

ARBITRATOR: -- to the Direct Examination that was offered today, you know, stick to the subject matter, sir, please.

MR. EMRICH: I am, your Honor, that's what I'm trying to do.

ARBITRATOR: Okay, thank you very much.

MR. EMRICH: Thank you.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. So, again, Dr. Petrella, looking at those renderings, do those renderings indicate that the plans that were passed by the 200 Board at the time of the March 12th, 2019 Master Board review included the walkway along the building on the ground level on either side of the elevator tower that's in the left portion of that rendering connecting those units to the elevator?

A. (Inaudible). MS. WOODCOCK: I'm sorry, Mr. Emrich, can you repeat the last part of your question? It cut out on my end.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. As you look at this rendering, does it appear to you that the plans that you reviewed at that time, March 12, 2019, included a walkway along the ground floor on either side of the elevator that connected the ground floor units to the elevator tower?

A. I'm looking at one image. I'm not looking at the multiple images that were presented, but that said, obviously, that this was what was presented on March 12th, 2019, and then represented at the November 24th, 2020, meeting, then the answer is "yes".

Q. And so that is your assumption, that it was the same plans that would have been approved on November 24th?

A. Correct.

MR. EMRICH: Is someone talking in the background?

MS. WARD: I did not have myself on mute, I apologize. I'm going to put myself on mute now.

MR. EMRICH: Thank you.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. What you're saying now is that you're assuming -- your answer to the question I just asked you is, if those same plans were presented in November of 2020, then as far as you're concerned, they would have been what was approved back on March 12th of 2019; is that what you said?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay, thank you. So if we look at the first part of R-3, the document from the Johnson group dated January of 2018, R-3 --

MR. EMRICH: It's the W. Johnson proposal.

MS. WARD: Okay. It's not R-3. It's R-2.

ARBITRATOR: It is R-2.

MR. EMRICH: Let's put R-2 up. I'm sorry.

MS. WOODCOCK: Just to clarify for the record, it's not R-2 either.

THE WITNESS: It's R-1.

MR. EMRICH: Okay, R-1. Put it up. January 22nd, 2018.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Do you recall -- would this be part of what you would have reviewed as well at the March Master Board meeting?

A. I don't specifically recall seeing this document. I could not testify to that, but I assume if that was part of the package submitted, then, yes.

Q. And if you would take a look at that document and read the first paragraph, and then tell me when you're done.

A. (Witness complies.) I'm done.

Q. What does that document say about ADA-compliant walkways?

A. Well, that it would be ADA compliant, yes.

Q. Okay. And was that because it connected all of the units that were part of the project to the elevator tower?

A. I think it's clear what it says, "the design intent is to connect the two-story portions of the building via ground level."

(Referred to Exhibit R-33.)

Q. And the reason I ask that is, if we go to R-33, and we go to the second page of R-33, which are the minutes from the March 12th, 2019, Master Board meeting, you

talk about the Building 200 walkway; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And, in fact, just looking at Section F under "Building 200 walkway", it states in the first sentence that "a discussion of ADA compliant access to elevators for those units without access."

So, again, would that be consistent with what we just talked about as to the plan that was presented and approved by the Master Board meeting, one that connected all of these walkways to the elevators, correct?

A. I would presume so.

Q. And then there's a couple of other paragraphs discussing the matter where one of your Board members wants to delay any motion to approve the plans until the modifications are done and resubmitted, and, again, that motion was defeated and these plans were approved and the authorization to go forward pursuant to the conditions that you previously testified to, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And so just so I'm clear, as I heard you, a key determination in what you were deciding on was to follow what the 200 Board members had approved; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And I think when we last talked to you, a question came up as to whether you had ever seen a proxy or the minutes from the June 2018 meeting and you had not; is that correct?

MS. WOODCOCK: Asked and answered.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Have you had a chance to look at that since?

A. No.

MR. EMRICH: So let's put Exhibit 11 up on the board. Let's start with Exhibit 10, I'm sorry.

ARBITRATOR: Which Exhibit 11?

MR. EMRICH: P-10, I'm sorry.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Take a look at that, Dr. Petrella, if you would, please.

A. (Witness complies.) I have seen this document before.

Q. And what is that?

A. A letter to the 200 Building residents discussing the proposal to construct the walkway.

Q. And it's about a special meeting that's been called for that proposal, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And a proxy that's been issued for the Board members to vote upon at that special meeting, correct?

A. You said the proxy is included.

Q. All right. And as you read that, does that, again, appear to be consistent with what you have looked at today as to what the Master Board would have approved in March of 2019?

A. Obviously, it would be -- my assumption that it would be the same series of renderings, but I don't know because I didn't see it at the time.

Q. Okay. Let's go to the next -- let's go to P-12. Okay, I'm sorry, P-11. Take a look at that, Dr. Petrella. Have you seen that before?

A. I think this was shown at our last session.

Q. And so that's the proxy that would have been voted on at the 2000 -- June 2018 meeting, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that, again, is consistent with the renderings that you looked at earlier that connect all those units that were referenced in the renderings, the ground units as well as the second-floor units, correct, with walkways to the elevator tower, correct?

A. I think it's the other way around. The proxy is referencing the renderings -- not the renderings, referencing the proxy -- I know what you mean and I don't disagree.

Q. So the answer to my question would be "yes", it does reflect what's referenced in the renderings that were approved; is that right?

A. If those, indeed, were the ones that were attached, yes.

Q. And you indicated that it was important that whatever you were approving was what the Board members -- I'm sorry, what the Association members, the 200 Association members had approved pursuant to that proxy; is that correct?

A. Well, if you're referencing the renderings, I think, you know, the answer then becomes that it was reasonably similar. I think that was our discussion.

Q. I'm just simply -- you talked about following the steps and you indicated that it was important to make sure that whatever you approved was consistent with what the proxy, the duly executed or voted on proxy was -- an access or path, correct?

A. That is not entirely correct.

Q. What isn't correct about it?

A. We never referenced the proxy in the March meeting when we were provided with both in January of 2019. And with a PowerPoint presentation in March of 2019 was a description of the project and the renderings of the project, the rough engineered drawings of the project, and the project was then approved pending the items that I stated earlier.

Q. So you're saying that you did not -- even though you said earlier that one of the steps you wanted to make sure was that the proxy that was duly executed and voted upon had been followed by the 200 Board, and so you're telling me now that you never looked at the proxy?

A. I'm telling you I did not look at --

MS. WOODCOCK: Objection, mischaracterizes his testimony.

ARBITRATOR: Hold on a second. What's your objection?

MS. WOODCOCK: The objection is mischaracterization of the testimony.

ARBITRATOR: Mr. Emrich, which testimony are you referencing here?

MR. EMRICH: I'm talking about his testimony today when he said what the steps were that he went -- that the 200 Board went through and he indicated that one of the things that he wanted to make sure that the proxy that had been voted on by the 200 Building owners was followed by the 200 Board with regard to the project that was being presented to them at the March of 2019 Master Board meeting.

ARBITRATOR: So essentially, what you're getting at is here, the unit owners of the 200 Building were present with -- everyone keeps calling them renderings. I'll continue to use that word. Those renderings depict two walkways. One is what I will call a ground-floor walkway, that's on the ground floor, and the other one is on what I will call the first floor, which is an evaluated walkway, and this proxy reflects that both were as dedicated to that vote based on those depictions. Is that what you're getting at?

MR. EMRICH: Not entirely, your Honor. What I'm getting at is that the proxy is very specific in what it says, what a walkway it says that it's going to -- that it's referencing and that are to be connected and that they connect all of the walkways on that side of the building. So it would include the ground-floor renderings, and what Dr. Petrella has said, he has said that he wanted to make certain that what they were approving was what the 200 Building owners had approved.

ARBITRATOR: Right.

MR. EMRICH: And that's what I'm asking, and that refers to the renderings that I just asked him about, which clearly showed the ground-floor walkways because those clearly connect, for example, 213 is on this particular list of documents, a list of units that are to be connected. They are part of that ground-level connection. So that's what was approved by building owners in 200, and what he said he would supposedly wanted to make sure that they were approving.

If you look at the minutes in P-13, they reflect the same thing. We can put P-13 up on board for a minute. What the Board did was pass what was presented in that proxy.

ARBITRATOR: Okay. Well, you want to rephrase the question, because I think by now the witness is lost.

MR. EMRICH: All right.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. So, Dr. Petrella, as we look and reflect upon what you've testified as the steps having been followed, what you reviewed and passed upon on March 12th of 2019 was what you wanted to make sure was what the building owners approved; is that correct, at that special meeting, correct?

A. In the broadest sense, correct.

Q. In fact, the declaration and the bylaws that we were presented with, the amended declaration bylaws specifically discusses that that is what a limited proxy can accomplish; is that correct?

MS. WOODCOCK: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. If you know?

ARBITRATOR: I'll allow it, because if he knows, he knows. If he doesn't, he doesn't.

THE WITNESS: You know, I think you misunderstood my earlier answer. So if -- go ahead and please ask me the same question again and I'll see if I can combine the two and clarify that because I never said anything about viewing proxies earlier.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Well, but basically -- (Talking over each other.)

A. (Inaudible) -- if you wanted to do what was approved by the 200 Building, and that information was provided to us by the management. They said they had gone through all the proper steps.

Q. And what I'm exploring, I'm not trying to make this difficult, what I'm exploring is what the steps were, and so that's why I asked you and you just answered my question, because what you just said is that your expectation was that what you were approving on March 12th of 2019 was what the Building owners had approved at that special meeting based on that proxy, correct?

A. Yes, I don't disagree with that.

Q. All right. Thank you.

And I'm not suggesting that you guys didn't approve that on March 12th, '19, because what I'm trying to understand is to make certain and understand what exactly you approved on March 12th, '19, and so now you've answered the question, and I appreciate your patience.

A. Okay, thank you.

Q. All right. Now, I just got a couple more questions and I will finish.

You also indicated that when this matter came before you for a final review on March 24th of 2020, the Master Board, your expectation would have been that what was presented to you for approval was the same plan that had been presented back and approved by your Board back on March 12th of 2019; is that what I heard you say?

A. There were certain requirements that had to be met. So it was not necessarily -- well, certainly, wasn't what had been presented in 2019, because now we had certified engineered drawings, we had county permits, and the renderings were similar. I think they were upgraded, but they were similar.

Q. But your understanding and your expectation was that those plans that came before you on November 24th of '20 on the Master Board would have been the same plans that that had been -- or the same project, if you will, that had been approved in that proxy and that Board action at that special meeting in June of 2018, correct, what the owners approved?

MS. WOODCOCK: Asked and answered.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Correct?

ARBITRATOR: It's been asked and answered, sir.

CONTINUING BY MR. EMRICH:

Q. Just one last question before I finish, you would agree with me, sir, that a project that would have only connected six of the units and would not have included the ground-floor walkways that were approved by the Master Board at the March 2019 meeting, would not have been the same plans that would have been put before you in November 24th of 2020 irrespective of whether it was part of the engineering drawings, what was approved by a permit or anything of the sort, correct?

A. That was a long question, Counselor.

Q. All right. Let me break it down.

What you would have approved in November of 2020 -- or 24, 2020, was a final plan that the 200 Board brought before you; is that correct?

A. Yes, to the best of my recollection, yes.

Q. And you indicated that there would have been engineering drawings, there would have been a permit, and there may have been some final renderings, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What your expectation was that whatever was in front of you and what you thought that you were passing upon was based on what had been approved originally by the Master Board in terms of the concept and the plan that was approved by the 200 Building owners pursuant to the proxy that was issued for that special meeting, correct?

A. You've wound a lot of information in the second half of that question as well. Yeah, I guess in general terms, yes.

Q. Thank you.

And final question, again, you would agree with me that if the plan that was brought before you as part of what you talked about that you would have looked at only connected the second-floor units, no longer connected the lower ground floor units on either side, it would no longer comply with what was passed by the proxy pursuant to the proxy in June of 2018, correct?

A. No, I disagree with that.

Q. Why do you disagree with me on that?

A. Because there was no stipulation ever that all nine units had to hook up. I think, again, it was reasonably similar to what was presented originally, and as I earlier testified, Mike had the opportunity to hook up if he wanted to. That was his choice.

Q. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about what was approved, what was approved did not comply with what was passed pursuant to the proxy of the special meeting in 2018. I mean, I don't want to go through this again showing you that the ground-floor units were not part of what was built, correct?

A. And I'm not -- again, my interpretation of that proxy, I can't say with what I know if that, indeed, satisfied that to the letter.

Q. Well, if we look at Section 6 under what was passed in the minutes, which are on the board, I want you to read -- I want you to read the first couple of sentences of that for us.

A. (Witness complies.) I can read it and see that it includes all nine units.

Q. And it includes the walkway and on the ground floor, correct?

A. Well, if they're part of the nine units, yes.

Q. So, again, that's what the proxy that was presented to the Building owners in 2018 was passed. That is the proxy that was passed, that was what the Board voted on; is that correct?

MS. WOODCOCK: Objection, asked and answered, calls for a legal conclusion.

ARBITRATOR: Mr. Emrich --

MR. EMRICH: I have no further questions, your Honor.

ARBITRATOR: Okay.

Ms. Woodcock, do you have any questions for the witness?

MS. WOODCOCK: Yes, your Honor. Actually, no, your Honor, no questions for Dr. Petrella.

ARBITRATOR: Doctor, I'll just take a moment of your time. I want to make sure my notes are correct on something that you said a couple minutes ago, if you don't mind.

(Off the record 2:29 P.M.)

(Back on the record 2:30 P.M.)

ARBITRATOR: We're back on the record.

EXAMINATION

BY THE ARBITRATOR:

Q. Doctor, at some point in your testimony a couple moments ago and in a couple other times, you said, at least according to my notes, the project that was approved by the Master Board was "reasonably similar" to what was voted on by the unit owners of Building 200. Do I have that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, without belaboring the point, that would include consideration of the renderings that were given to Building 200 Board, the proxy -- and the proxy authorizing that vote as opposed to what was actually built on the ground?

A. I think the proxy was something that predated Master Association's involvement. We were assured by management they had approved this project. Now, you know, the details of the project, again, I was just a director at the time. I was not the Board president, but I was in the November 2020 meeting, and when reviewing the information we had from March of 2019 and comparing that with that of November of 2020, everything appeared similar, the renderings appeared similar, and then we had detailed engineered drawings, and the permits and everything was there, and that met the requirements of the Master Association.

Q. So based on your reasoning, if an association says, "Well, we're going to build a wall here and we're thinking about a five-foot wall", but then they go out and build a 15-foot wall, that's okay?

A. No.

ARBITRATOR: Thank you. I have no further questions.

MR. EMRICH: Nor do I.

ARBITRATOR: Thank you for your time, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MS. WOODCOCK: Respondents call Nancy Taylor.

N A N C Y T A Y L O R

having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

E X A M I N A T I O N

NANCY TAYLOR

BY MS. WOODCOCK:

Q. Were you present this morning during Mr. Meiresonne's