Question 7 proposes ‘starter home’ zoning change

Massachusetts voters will decide in November whether to override local zoning rules and allow single-family homes on lots as small as 5,000 square feet, a measure supporters say would spur construction of starter homes and opponents say would strip communities of control over development.

The effects of Question 7 would vary statewide, with advocates in Brookline hoping to push the needle amid a housing crisis, while officials in Sandwich are reevaluating long-term infrastructure plans to accommodate possible new developments. 

Supporters say the measure would create affordable housing options as costs push more young people out of the state. Opponents say this statewide policy takes oversight away from local officials, who they argue are best suited to make zoning decisions.

The ballot question would amend the state’s zoning laws, allowing single-family homes to be built on lots as small as 5,000 square feet, with a minimum 50-foot street frontage, in municipalities served by public sewer and water systems. 

Municipalities would maintain control over other zoning decisions, such as distances from other structures, the bulk and height of developments, and restrictions on short-term rentals. The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities would assist in local guidance if the measure were to pass. 

Modeling from the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University estimated the question would generate 3,500 to 12,000 net new homes over the first decade.

Andrew Mikula, chair of the Legalize Starter Homes ballot committee, proposed the question through a citizen’s petition. The measure, he says, would reduce land costs and incentivize the construction of smaller, more affordable homes for downsizing seniors, young families, and first-time buyers.

“We need to nudge [municipalities] to think more proactively about planning for growth under a framework that allows them to make it work for them,” Mikula said. “That’s important, but it cannot be optional whether we’re allowing starter homes to be built in our communities in 2026.”

The campaign collected more than 100,000 signatures since September 2025 and is endorsed by Gov. Maura Healey. 

Zain Ahmed, 23, organization manager of the Youth Affordable Housing Coalition, said he supports Question 7 as a way to create more abundant, affordable housing. Many of his college friends are leaving Massachusetts, he said, because the cost of living outweighs the benefits. 

“If I’m a young professional who just graduated from Boston University and the rent is $3,000, is it really worth living here?” Ahmed said. “If these young talented people don’t stay in our state, then businesses are going to leave with them.”

Homeownership, he said, would give Gen Z economic stability.

“It’s part of the American dream: you work hard, you play by the rules, and you’ll buy a home that you can own,” Ahmed said. “Now you have a stake in the economy, and also a stake in your community.”

Opponents argue the measure does not ensure real estate developers will build starter homes rather than luxury units, and new developments could put stress on sewer and water infrastructure, said Adam Chapdelaine, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, a trade association for the state’s cities and towns. 

“Without somebody trying to provide a broader look at what the impacts could be, an outcome could be further gentrified neighborhoods, further creation of more luxury units, without doing anything to actually address accessible and affordable housing,” Chapdelaine said. 

If this policy were to pass, Chapdelaine said, local municipalities may lack adequate protections against well-funded developer interests. 

The question received more than $1.4 million in campaign funding, with the Massachusetts Association of Realtors and Mass Association of Realtors PAC contributing $500,000 combined in support of the initiative.

Theresa Hatton, the association’s chief executive officer, said it lobbied for this question, “not [because of] our members’ business per se,” but for the interest of its realtors’ clients and to increase home ownership. 

The state needs more than 220,000 homes of all types, sizes and affordability by 2035 to accommodate the current aging population, reduce overcrowding and homelessness, and sustain its workforce, according to the state’s needs assessment.

Impacts in towns and cities would differ

Question 7 likely wouldn’t have much impact on New Bedford, but it would have a more significant impact on surrounding towns, including Dartmouth and Fairhaven, The Light reported in March.

In Brookline, Brookline for Everyone, a grassroots affordable housing advocacy group, supports the question, but expects limited local impact due to small lot sizes in some districts. 

B4E board member Katha Seidman says she sees potential for development in zoning districts where minimum lot sizes range from 10,000 square feet up to 40,000 square feet.

While Seidman called the policy “modest,” she said the ballot question is a good step toward addressing the state’s housing shortage. 

“Brookline For Everyone would love to find a way to do things at greater scale, and I think our housing crisis and our housing needs in the greater Boston area require that,” Seidman said. “But in the meantime, this moves the needle. We have to keep making progress on every front as best we can.” 

Former Brookline Select Board member John VanScoyoc questioned whether the changes would provide affordable housing or simply benefit wealthy homeowners who can subdivide their land and build expensive developments.

“I’m not sure any of this addresses the population of people who can’t now afford starter homes. It could just as easily be termed as a rich get richer ballot question, depending on how it pans out,” VanScoyoc said. 

On Cape Cod, Sandwich, the region’s oldest town, has minimum lot sizes of up to 60,000 square feet in some districts, but lacks a municipal sewer system, so the measure wouldn’t immediately apply there. 

However, the town is planning a $200 million effort to expand sewer connections and would likely feel the impact over the next decade, said Town Manager George “Bud” Dunham.

Increasing the number of properties requiring sewer connections could raise costs for the town and necessitate changes to long-term planning, Dunham said. 

“The state lately has been trying to do a one-size-fits-all approach on certain issues to allow certain things by right without factoring how it relates to ongoing efforts in the town to address the same thing,” Dunham said. 

Leanne Drake, Sandwich’s community development director, said any future density increases would require collaborative planning among highway, engineering, fire, and school departments. 

“I don’t know that we would, at any point ourselves, have advocated for 5,000 square foot lots with 50 feet of frontage [because of] safety purposes for some of the speeds on our roadways, infrastructure drainage concerns, runoff, overcrowding in certain areas, [and] resources for schools,” Drake said. 

Sandwich’s Planning Board and Select Board have not taken a formal position on Question 7.

Maxwell Palmer, associate professor of political science at Boston University, said residents would see “very slow and very little” change in their communities, which would rely primarily on redevelopment rather than rapidly transforming neighborhoods.

This ballot question, Palmer said, is a moderate step in amending the fragmented approaches to the state’s housing needs. 

“If communities make decisions one at a time, only thinking about their own community, we cannot solve a regional problem,” Palmer said. “We need regional solutions.”

The Light contributed to this report.