In S. Phila. feud over pool, still water runs very deep

Perhaps only in South Philadelphia could a neighborhood dispute over an inground pool snowball into years of legal wrangling, including a civil suit, criminal charges and a code of silence worthy of a Mafia movie.

It started in 2008, when the Baldi family, of The Reserve at Packer Park, a tony 230-home development on a triangular patch of land near FDR Park, installed an inground pool against civic-association rules. The association sued to have it removed.

"No one else has an inground swimming pool," said Kevin Kelly, an attorney for The Reserve at Packer Park Homeowners Association. "The declaration that governs the community association specifically says no swimming pools at any time."

A seemingly straightforward case, but then it got more complicated.

In 2009, just as the civil case was going to trial, the pool's owner, Victor Baldi III, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault.

Baldi's attorney, Michael DeFino, said that Baldi was trying to take pictures of other swimming pools in the area when he was surrounded by an angry mob of neighbors. One man punched his car and then accused Baldi of striking him with the vehicle, DeFino said.

In court documents, the alleged assault victim said that there had been no mob and that he punched the car only to brace himself as Baldi's vehicle came toward him. He said that he attempted to stop Baldi because he wanted to know why someone was taking pictures of his child in a kiddie pool.

"This guy says 'he almost hit me with the car,' but he had no injuries," DeFino said. "They tried to make it like he took pictures of the kids in the pool and they trumped it up. These people have nothing else to do. He's taking pictures of the pool."

Now jump to 2010. The Baldi pool is still there. The civil and criminal cases remain unresolved.

The matter is still so controversial - at least in this small pocket of the city - that none of the principals is talking except through lawyers. Even people on the periphery of the case won't speak on the record about it.

Standard response generally went along these lines: "Keep me out of it."

The offending swimming hole is more oversized Jacuzzi than lap pool. It is fenced in and can't be seen from the ground level of surrounding properties.

But those familiar with the association's rules say that the regulation isn't frivolous: The area has a high water table and an inground pool could affect other property owners.

Still, the association board was at least willing to consider allowing pools when the Baldis first brought up the matter in March 2008.

That's when the couple presented a petition with what they said were 154 homeowner signatures - 67 percent of the homeowners - urging the board to amend its rules to allow pools, according to filings in the civil case.

According to court documents, this is what happened next:

The board told the Baldis that the amendment hadn't been approved yet but proceeded with plans to amend the rules, holding a homeowners' meeting at which it distributed guidelines for pool installation and ballots to vote on the issue. Packets were mailed to homeowners who didn't make the meeting.

The Baldis said that they were told that some people hadn't received the packet and that some of those who did discarded it, thinking that the issue had been settled and that pools had been approved.

The board argued that the original petition signatures weren't enough and went forward with the mail-in vote. But, despite extending the vote by a week, the board did not receive 67 percent of the votes needed to make the change.

The Baldis dug their pool in late May 2008, arguing that their petition showed that a majority of the homeowners were aware of and approved of their action. The Baldis also contended in their court filing that the then-property manager had approved the pool.

The board then filed suit against the Baldis.

The civil case went before Judge James Lynn for five days in September 2009. The judge has not yet issued a ruling.

A clerk for Lynn returned a message left for him, saying that the judge could not talk about the case to anyone outside appropriate judicial staff.

Kelly, whose firm was retained two years ago, said that his clients awaited Lynn's decision.

"They're eager to have a ruling and put it behind them," he said.

Baldi, who also declined to speak on the record, indicated that he, too, wanted the pool controversy finished. He has a court date for the criminal case in July.