Closing of a Portion of a Public Alley in Square 762, S.O. 23-01974, Act of 2026
This bill closes a dead-end portion of a public alley in Square 762 in Ward 6, as shown on Surveyor’s plat S.O. 23-01974. The Council finds the alley segment unnecessary for alley purposes and orders title to vest as shown on the plat, but only after all conditions in the official file are satisfied. The measure is tied to a redevelopment project that would combine adjacent lots and allow renovation, expansion, and adaptive reuse of historic buildings on the site into a larger mixed-use building with retail, office, and event space.
The bill is a typical District alley-closing act and relies on the Home Rule Act and the Street and Alley Closing Acquisition Procedures Act. It also adopts the Chief Financial Officer’s fiscal impact statement and takes effect after mayoral approval, congressional review, and publication in the D.C. Register. In practical terms, the closure would remove a small public right-of-way segment from the alley system and vest the land in the abutting owner(s), subject to recorded conditions and any required utility or agency accommodations.
The overall sentiment in the record is generally supportive. ANC 6B voted in support of the application, the Office of Planning had no objection, NCPC found the proposal not inconsistent with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies, and several agencies concluded the closure would not create transportation or environmental problems. The Mayor transmitted the legislation, the Attorney General found it legally sufficient, and the CFO concluded there are sufficient funds and no District costs associated with the closure.
The main points of contention involve utility and infrastructure impacts rather than the policy of closing the alley itself. DDOT initially objected to recordation until the applicant compensated the District for DDOT assets and satisfied subdivision and permit conditions; DC Water objected unless an easement was provided to protect sewer facilities; Verizon objected unless its facilities were either preserved by easement or relocated at the owner’s expense; and Pepco required conditions related to streetlight removal and service coordination. A community email also opposed the closure on historic-preservation grounds, arguing that the alley is part of the neighborhood’s historic fabric, though planning and preservation agencies did not treat the alley closure as inconsistent with applicable review standards.
Overall, the bill’s effect is to facilitate private redevelopment of historic properties by converting a small, unused alley stub into developable land while preserving public interests through conditions, easements, and utility coordination. The closure is expected to have no direct fiscal cost to the District and may increase taxable value once the redevelopment proceeds.
The bill amends District land records by closing a specific portion of public alley in Square 762 and transferring the closed area to the abutting property owner(s) as shown on the Surveyor’s plat. It affects District right-of-way law under the Home Rule Act and alley-closing procedures, and it may trigger related private obligations such as easements, utility relocations, DDOT asset compensation, and permit coordination before recordation. The closure supports redevelopment of historic buildings and may increase taxable property value once the combined site is improved.
The general sentiment is favorable. ANC 6B supported the closure, OP and NCPC found no planning inconsistency, the Attorney General certified legal sufficiency, and the CFO found no District cost. The record shows some public concern and agency conditions, but the prevailing official view is that the alley stub is no longer needed and can be closed if the applicant satisfies required conditions.
The principal contention concerns infrastructure and access impacts, not whether the alley is unused. DDOT required compensation and proof of subdivision/building permit steps; DC Water sought an easement to protect sewer facilities; Verizon required either an easement or reimbursement for relocation of telecom plant; and Pepco conditioned approval on coordination over streetlight removal and service relocation. A separate public comment objected on historic-preservation grounds, arguing the alley should remain part of the neighborhood’s historic fabric, but preservation and planning agencies did not adopt that view.