Massachusetts Ballot Question Would Legalize Smaller Lots for Starter Homes

This fall, Massachusetts voters will decide whether to allow homes on smaller lots. Boosters hope the initiative will transform the state's lagging housing market and promote starter homes.

Question 7, if passed, would change the state's laws so that a single-family home could be built on a lot that's residentially zoned and at least 5,000 square feet. The lot would need at least 50 feet of land bordering the street or public way, and it would also need access to public sewer and water.

Dozens of states have looked at reforms to make it easier to build small "starter" homes. These kinds of small and more affordable homes have vanished over the years, but are starting to make a comeback. But in many cases, they've run into resistance, especially as cities try to change zoning laws to allow smaller-lot development.

The goal is to allow smaller homes on more versatile lots. Andrew Mikula, the ballot initiative's organizer, is chief housing economist at the Pioneer Institute, a free-market think tank. He thinks Question 7 is the "Dolly Parton of ballot questions," pointing to broad support across the state.

"Really want to frame it as kind of a baseline standard for what we should expect cities and towns to allow in terms of new housing in 21st-century metropolitan areas," Mikula tells Realtor.com®. "In one of the most expensive and land-constrained areas of the country, 5,000 really is a reasonable requirement."

Mikula and the group behind the petition, Legalize Starter Homes, believe it won't just mean suburban development around Boston. Small towns around the state will be able to build new homes around existing infrastructure.

That, they hope, means more village centers and less sprawl into rural areas that don't want new housing.

Question 7's impact

Boosters hope the new law will mean more housing in famously expensive Massachusetts. But how much is up for debate.

The Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University expects such a new mandate could affect roughly 200,000 parcels in the state. But its models consider that most homeowners won't want to subdivide their property. And cities opposed to housing will pass new laws to slow housing in other ways.

So, it expects just 750 new homes a year thanks to the law. But that's still a 15% increase in single-family home construction in the state. And the Tisch College says it could be paired with a by-right duplex law with reinforcing effects.

Mikula and Legalize Starter Homes believe that study is overly conservative. Based on their own reading of lots with sewer and water access, plus rules around lot depth, they believe the changes could mean 2,200 to 5,700 new homes a year.

That includes letting people split off parts of their property to build homes for family members, for instance.

"We're not envisioning farmland turning into hundreds of homes at a time," Mikula says. "We want this to be a kind of well-planned and New England-like development pattern."

In any event, any increase in homebuilding would help a strained housing market. Massachusetts earned an F on the Realtor.com State-by-State Housing Report Card, part of the Let America Build campaign that tracks how effectively each state balances affordability and new construction.

The state estimates it needs to build 222,000 homes from 2025 to 2035 to meet growing demand and prevent runaway housing cost escalations. That includes over 100,000 units just to overcome a current shortage of available housing units.

A different Massachusetts group attempted to get a rent control measure on the ballot, without success.

The battle lines

So far, the issue has lined up over 100 endorsements, including Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, and Congressman Jake Auchincloss. Dozens more mayors, state legislators, and city council members signed on, too.

So did the Builders & Remodelers Association of Greater Boston, Commercial Real Estate Development Association Massachusetts, Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Association of Realtors.

Airbnb announced this week it was contributing $105,000 to the campaign, part of its larger effort to prop up the housing market.

On the other side, the Massachusetts Municipal Association opposes the measure, saying it doesn't consider existing capacity.

“Aside from regulations around setbacks and heights, Question 7 removes nearly all discretion for local officials and residents in zoning,” MMA legislative and policy counsel Ali DiMatteo said. “By overriding local zoning authority with a one-size-fits-all mandate, communities lose the power to pace their own growth.”

The Massachusetts Republican Party also opposes the proposal because it favors cities and towns are better positioned to manage housing. A statewide edict, it said, "ignores local conditions and neighborhood character."

This matches other states efforts. Maryland and Utah, for instance, saw starter-home efforts backed by their governors stall after local interests worried they'd take away power to enforce local zoning.

Mikula says the implementation framework for the ballot question will still let local governments set constraints on how the law is implemented.

"We're creating a sandbox around what regulations you can implement at the local level," Mikula explains. "But within that, cities and towns can create their own design standards, as long as it's objective, as long as it's compatible with by-right process."