Neighbors urge Zoning Commission to reject or rework 901 Monroe plan, citing alley safety, shadows and weak construction protections

Neighbors who live within 200 feet of the proposed 901 Monroe Street development urged the D.C. Zoning Commission to press the applicant for major changes or deny the PUD, saying the current proposal would put a high volume of vehicle and delivery traffic into a narrow, residential alley and would cast new shadows on adjacent homes.

Barbara Kalo, who testified on behalf of the “200 footers” group, said the party has long opposed inappropriate up‑zoning and that the 2024–25 proposal repeats past mistakes: “The requested spot zoning of this site would be precedent setting for the entire area south of Monroe Street,” she said, adding that the project is “larger and taller than the prior proposal.”

The 200‑foot group’s nut graf: neighbors said they are not opposed to development but want a design and legal conditions that protect adjacent row houses from noise, dust, vibration, vehicle movements and loss of sunlight. They pressed for a detailed construction management agreement (CMA), narrower massing adjacent to Tenth Street townhomes, relocation of vehicular access away from the Lawrence Street alley, and tangible neighborhood amenities rather than donations to outside nonprofits.

Architect and nearby resident Lillian Noya told commissioners the building produces a “sheer wall effect” along the eastern edge that will overwhelm porches and block sunlight for homes on Ninth and Tenth streets. “This will not only disrupt the neighborhood’s aesthetic, but it will also create an overwhelming presence looming over the nearby residents,” she said, urging the commission to require step‑downs and additional setbacks on the alley side.

Residents described the alley behind the Tenth Street rowhouses as a lived, semi‑public space used by children and families. Julie Kurtz Keller, a mother and nearby homeowner, said converting that alley into the project’s primary ingress/egress would be “a parent’s nightmare,” noting deliveries and trucks will likely be far greater than the few daily trips DDOT estimated during a May meeting with neighbors.

Guy Durant, who represents a subset of 200‑foot neighbors, focused on the CMA. He compared the 2025 CMA submitted by the applicant with a more detailed seven‑page agreement from a prior case (2012), and said the new version lacks explicit monitoring, vibration and air‑quality protections, naming of additional insured parties, and compensation measures. “By merging the detailed protections of the 2012 version with the streamlined communication protocols of the 2025 version, the final CMA can become the best of both worlds,” Durant said, and asked the commission to require that revision before granting approval.

Others emphasized amenity shortfalls. Jamila Gleason, a long‑time resident, said proposed benefits — undergrounding utilities on Monroe and a modest donation package the applicant described — do not substitute for accessible green space, neighborhood retail, or space for local nonprofits. “This is not an amenity,” she said of the applicant’s offer to study land around the Brooks Mansion, which the developer does not own.

Speakers also raised equity concerns: Joseph Keller testified that the people most exposed to the project’s harms — older neighbors, families with small children, residents with limited mobility — are the least able to absorb them and feel under‑represented in the process.

The 200‑footers asked the commission to require: a revised CMA that lists monitoring, pre‑ and post‑construction inspections and enforcement; relocation of loading/garage access off a public street rather than the Lawrence Street alley; additional design step‑downs and setbacks facing the Tenth Street homes; a fuller amenities package tied to local needs; and a transportation impact analysis that anticipates deliveries and package volumes for a 233‑unit building.

Applicant representatives said they would continue to meet neighbors and revise materials, but residents said they had not seen a robust, line‑by‑line CMA negotiation since early meetings.

The commission did not vote; it closed public testimony and set a schedule for further filings and responses, asking the applicant to provide additional materials for the record and encouraging continued engagement between the developer and affected neighbors.

Ending: Neighbors did not ask the Zoning Commission to block all development at the site. Instead, they urged either tighter conditions on a PUD approval or that the commission deny the application until the applicant addresses alley access, sunlight impacts, the CMA and a clearer, locally focused amenities package.