
The 26-34 Church Lane vacant lot. (Photo: Rasheed Z. Ajamu)
The Philadelphia Historical Commission unanimously approved a motion criticizing the plans for the vacant lots at 26-34 Church Lane at its public meeting on Tuesday, January 28, at 9 a.m.
However, development can, and most likely will, move forward.
This comes nearly a year after the Philadelphia Historical Commission (PHC) denied developer Olympia Holdings’ original plans based on its proximity to the Germantown Urban Village Historic District. The district just got historic status last year.
The original plans included a five-story building with 33 units, which PHC and neighbors rejected due to its size and design. The company then altered its plans to meet the PHC’s original recommendations, including that the building would be a few feet shorter and make changes to some of the outside aesthetics. Initially, the project was “by right,” but it was required to get PHC’s approval after the district got historic designation.
The property’s owner went to the Court of Common Pleas and, in December 2024, won an appeal. Fueled by that win, the developers reintroduced the original plans.
The court ruling makes the proposed building “non-contributing,” which ultimately stripped the PHC of its previous year’s ability to endorse or reject it. This allowed the PHC, particularly the Architectural Committee, to only review and comment on the plans. The developers are not bound to accept the recommendations.
The historical commission’s motion opposing the plans stems mainly from the developers’ return to the original plans. They no longer adopted their first set of revisions, which included reducing the height by 3 feet 6 inches, an additional expanse of masonry facing Market Square, and other changes.
The commission had very few comments that differed from last year’s. “We’ve seen this before,” PHC architect Dan McCoubrey stated.
However, Architecture Committee member Justin Detwiler posed a question to the owner of the property, who was without any representation during the meeting.
“Why abandon [the revisions] and go back to the original scheme?”
The owner, whose display name was “Ch D,” unmuted and said, “I like the design, and that’s why I did it.”
Another committee member, John Clover, asked for clarification on whether the owner disregarded their sentiments. The owner responded, “Correct.”
Germantown neighbor Ann Doley made a public comment before the meeting, expressing concerns about the development’s size and potential impact on the surrounding area.
“The back of it nearly touches the yards and houses on the small street behind it. It will block the sun of so many homes, intrude on privacy, create noise, congestion, gridlock, and unsafe driving onto and off the block and at the entrance/exit of the building.”
She asks the question to developers: “How would you like to live somewhere for decades [and] then find a huge building towering over your yard and people on balconies peering in and disturbing your peace?”
Six neighbors commented during the meeting, all opposing the developer’s plans and expressing disappointment in disregarding neighbors.
Jim Dragoni, a nearby neighbor, said he feels “very disappointed that this particular developer came in with an arrogant and bullying attitude and the idea he can come here and do whatever he wants.”
Dragoni said he would continue to oppose the development regardless of the circumstances and vowed to get all 1,100 people who had signed an old petition to oppose it again.
“So be prepared,” he warned.
It should be noted that this developer owns the 42-68 Church Lane property. After neighbors objected to the original plan to develop 148 on the property, the plans were downsized to 122 units. Even with those changes, those plans are currently on hold.
Other neighbors and stakeholders who publicly opposed the project at this meeting included Tuomi Forrest of Historic Germantown, Ann Peters (an archeologist), Allison Weiss of the SoLo Germantown Civic Association, Suzanne Ponsen of West Central Germantown Neighbors, and Gina Michaels.
While neighbors’ public opposition remains the same as last year, some still believe this development — and others like it — is good for the neighborhood.
One neighbor, Nelle Greene, supported the development via public comments before the meeting.
“My family and I moved to the neighborhood and want to stay, raise our family, and contribute to this community,” she wrote. “But [we] cannot do that with abandoned buildings, dangerous parking lots, and hostility toward developments.”
NOTE: This article was updated to reflect more background information about the developer’s other plans for the same street.