What to know about Question 7: Single Family Homes

This November, Massachusetts voters will decide on nine statewide ballot questions. Question 7, titled Single Family Homes, could change how cities and towns regulate lot sizes for single-family homes. 

Here’s what the ballot question would do, who supports and opposes it, and how it could impact residents.

What the question would do

If approved, Question 7 would amend Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws, the state’s zoning act. It would set a 5,000-square-foot minimum lot size and 50-foot street frontage minimum for single-family homes in municipalities served by public water and sewer systems. This means that areas relying on septic systems and private wells would be unaffected by the ballot question, should it pass.

The measure would apply to all Massachusetts municipalities except Boston, which isn’t covered by Chapter 40A. Cities and towns would retain authority over other zoning matters, including building setbacks, height limits, open space requirements, parking, and whether homes can be used as short-term rentals. The state’s Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities would be authorized to issue guidance or regulations to help administer the law.

What supporters say

The measure has three official ballot question committees in support of the question, according to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. The question originated as a citizen petition filed in July 2025 by Andrew Mikula, who chairs the Legalize Starter Homes ballot question committee. A second committee, organized by the nonprofit Abundant Housing Massachusetts and chaired by its executive director, Jesse Kanson-Benanav, is also campaigning in favor. The third ballot question committee in support is the Democratic Socialists For a Fair Massachusetts.

Supporters argue that Massachusetts’ minimum lot size requirements, which are determined on a town-by-town, city-by-city basis, drive up the cost of land, which in turn pushes builders toward large, expensive homes rather than smaller, moderately priced ones. 

Kanson-Benanav argued that oversized minimum lot requirements have effectively priced smaller “starter homes” out the market statewide.

“Because of these very inflated minimum lot sizes across Massachusetts, we have killed the starter home,” he said in an interview with Boston.com.

Mikula pointed to broader demographic pressures, saying the state has seen an unusually high number of young adults leave Massachusetts during their prime family-formation years, which he argued is harming the state’s economy.

Indeed, a Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll released in June found more than half of Massachusetts respondents said they’ve considered leaving the state due to cost of living concerns, including housing affordability.

Both Mikula and Kanson-Benanav noted the measure has drawn support from a mix of groups, including regional chambers of commerce, The New York Times Editorial Board, and more than 50 endorsers including elected officials like U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss.

“We’re the Dolly Parton of ballot questions,” Mikula said.

See how much the three committees supporting the ballot question have raised here.

What opponents say

No ballot question committee has formed to formally oppose Question 7. 

The most vocal opposition has come from the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA), a non-profit organization which represents the state’s cities and towns.

The organization’s executive director Adam Chapdelaine testified against the measure at a legislative hearing in March, arguing that “zoning decisions are inherently local,” and that a “one-size-fits-all” state policy would remove local residents and officials from that decision-making process.

What’s the potential impact?

Tufts University’s non-partisan Center for State Policy Analysis modeled the measure’s likely effects and found:

• Question 7 would likely generate roughly 750 new homes per year, with a plausible range of 350 to 1,200 annually given modeling uncertainty.
• It would increase single-family home building by about 15% and overall housing development by about 5% statewide.
• The measure would affect zoning authority over roughly 850,000 parcels, though most already permit single-family homes. Only about 200,000 parcels would see their development status actually change.
• Suburbs, particularly those near Boston with existing sewer infrastructure and larger, splittable lots, would likely see the largest increase in new construction.
• Tufts researchers also noted that a separate legislative proposal to allow duplexes by-right on any lot zoned for single-family homes could compound Question 7’s effects if both become law, since parcels freed up under Question 7 could then become eligible for duplexes rather than single homes.

In its guide for voters, the Secretary of the Commonwealth said the new law “could provide new growth revenues to municipalities,” but noted that projecting that growth could be “difficult.”

“The proposed law thus has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances,” according to the voter guide.

The bottom line

Per the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s voter guide:

A “yes” vote would allow single-family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet or more in residential areas, subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects of those homes.

A “no” vote would make no change to the law relative to building single-family homes.

Annie Jonas is a Community writer at Boston.com. She was previously a local editor at Patch and a freelancer at the Financial Times.