Zoning commission hears bid to ease rules for alley-lot housing; advocates push to cut parking and restore 15-foot by-right access

The Zoning Commission on Jan. 12 took public testimony on ZC Case 25-06, a package of text amendments from the District’s Office of Planning (OP) intended to make it easier to build housing on alley lots across Washington, D.C.

OP planner Matt Jessick told commissioners the proposal focuses on three areas: subdivision rules, use permissions (including allowing residential use in some R1 and R2 zones), and development standards. Jessick said OP now proposes a modest increase in the matter-of-right height for alley lots from 20 to 22 feet, a special-exception pathway to allow additional height (up to 35 feet in residential zones and 40 feet in commercial zones), and the option to allow two units on larger alley lots. He said OP identified roughly 511 vacant lots that meet a 450-square-foot threshold and that these changes are intended to reduce regulatory barriers and encourage infill housing.

"We feel like the most likely lots to develop are the vacant lots," OP said, noting they "meet the minimum size threshold of 450 square feet." Jessick also said OP has proposed keeping parking minimums in place for now but relying on the Board of Zoning Adjustment's (BZA) special-exception authority to reduce or eliminate parking on a case-by-case basis.

Nut graf: The hearing drew broad support from housing advocates, neighborhood commissioners and designers, but attendees pressed OP and agencies on three hot-button items: alley width for by-right subdivision, a proposed increase in pervious-surface requirements, and parking minimums. Many witnesses argued that agency review and case-by-case special exceptions are not a reliable substitute for clearer by-right standards and that high utility and infrastructure costs currently make many alley projects financially infeasible.

Agency positions and the safety question

OP said it initially considered reducing the by-right alley-width standard to 15 feet but revised that part of the proposal after consulting Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS). "Based on that feedback, we have changed this proposal...to maintain the existing width requirements," Jessick said, adding that a special exception pathway would remain. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) testified in support of the amendment but recommended clarifying special-exception standards and the information applicants should provide so BZA and reviewing agencies can assess public-safety and neighborhood impacts more efficiently.

Several witnesses, including ANC and community representatives, strongly disagreed with OP's retreat from the 15-foot by-right subdivision standard. "We already have a variety of alleys; 12-foot and 10-foot alleys are the norm," Mark Eckenweiler, vice chair of ANC 6D/60, said. He urged the commission to require a written FEMS justification for abandoning the 15-foot by-right standard.

Cost and feasibility concerns cited by alley owners and designers

Multiple alley-lot owners and architects described high upfront infrastructure costs that they say make alley development marginal or infeasible. Alley owner Alona Aliyah said she faced "tens of thousands of dollars in professional fees, and over a $150,000 to $500,000 in required utility infrastructure cost estimates" to bring water and sewer to a single lot. Brian Levy, another alley lot owner, said similar utility costs made his project financially untenable and urged the commission to restore as much by-right flexibility as possible.

"Height is a single biggest lever to make alley lot projects financially feasible," one architect said in testimony supporting by-right increases closer to 25–30 feet, in addition to a special-exception path to reach higher where appropriate.

Pervious-surface and parking debates

The District Department of Environment (DOE) recommended increasing the pervious-surface minimum for alley lots from 10% to 25% to address flooding concerns. OP acknowledged that DOE's suggestion had generated negative feedback and offered to continue discussions to seek a compromise. Multiple witnesses warned that a flat 25% requirement could eliminate too much buildable area on tiny lots and would push projects into expensive solutions (like green roofs), undermining the goal of adding housing.

On parking, a consistent theme of testimony came from community groups and designers: eliminate parking minimums for alley lots. Advocates argued that on-site parking consumes scarce buildable area on small lots, that many alley lots are close to transit, and that requiring parking raises costs and reduces the feasibility of modest housing. OP said it left the current parking minimums in place intentionally but acknowledged the commission could provide direction; speakers pointed out that Residential Permit Parking (RPP) eligibility for alley homes also influences neighborhood impacts and asked OP to clarify parking access.

Commission follow-up and next steps

Commissioners praised OP's outreach and asked for written responses to the record on a number of items, including FEMS' rationale on alley width, the proposed pervious-surface change, parking requirements, and the Office of the Attorney General's recommendations. OP agreed to consult with stakeholders and city agencies and to return with supplemental materials; staff estimated they would need time for outreach and suggested a follow-up meeting in March with materials due March 2.

A procedural note: the commission scheduled a closed meeting for Jan. 15 to receive legal advice and deliberate (but not vote) on contested cases; the motion to schedule the closed meeting passed 5–0.

What remains unresolved

Key substantive questions remain for the commission: whether to restore the 15-foot by-right alley-width standard for subdivision, how to reconcile DOE's pervious-surface recommendation with small-lot feasibility, whether to eliminate parking minimums by-right, and how high to set matter-of-right height limits (22 feet now proposed; some stakeholders urged 25–30 feet). OP will return with written responses and proposed clarifications to help the commission weigh those trade-offs.

The hearing record includes many exhibits (ANC reports, agency comments, OAG and OP reports, and letters) and voluminous public testimony; the commission adjourned and said it will revisit the case after receiving OP's supplemental materials.