AMHERST — Should single-family houses be allowed statewide on land roughly the size of an NBA basketball court? Voters will take on that question in the Nov. 3 election.
Ballot Question 7 proposes to allow construction of single-family homes in residentially zoned areas totaling at least 5,000 square feet of land, given that there is at least 50 feet of frontage and the lot has access to public water and sewer services.
To give a sense of scale, a professional basketball court is 4,700 square feet.
A yes vote would put this zoning standard in place statewide. A no vote would maintain current laws determined by local zoning boards.
Currently, there is no statewide standard for minimum lot size, as each municipality makes that determination.
Northampton already has an even lower threshold of 3,750 square feet with 50 feet of frontage in some zoning districts. In other areas, the minimum is 5,000 square feet. Meanwhile, outside the urban zoning corridors, minimum lot size can be as high as 80,000 square feet, according to Carolyn Misch, director of planning and sustainability.
In Amherst, the minimum lot size is currently 12,000 square feet. Most districts require at least 20,000 square feet, according to the town’s residential zoning table.
If Question 7 were to pass, would it promote needed housing or undermine locally tailored planning? This disagreement was on display during a recent debate on the ballot question at the Amherst Police Station.
Andrew Mikula, chief housing economist at the Pioneer Institute, argued the measure could help seniors downsize and first-time buyers build equity and establish roots in communities where housing is hard — and expensive — to come by.
He also emphasized that the measure would not affect most rural communities in western Massachusetts because they lack public sewer infrastructure. Instead, sewer-served areas in Amherst, Springfield, Longmeadow, Holyoke, Chicopee and Pittsfield would be most affected, according to Mikula.
“We’re kind of breaking through the collective action problem of planning and zoning by setting baseline standards that facilitate incremental, broad-based growth in areas that can handle it,” he said.
Adrienne Nunez, senior legislative director at the Massachusetts Municipal Association, countered his claims and advocated for a “no” vote.
Nunez said the proposed initiative is a one-size-fits-all mandate that ignores local water and sewer capacity. She also expressed concern that developers would prioritize high-profit, large units over affordability, arguing instead for thoughtful planning at the local level.
Nunez warned that reducing minimum lot sizes could allow existing properties to be divided and redeveloped with larger homes. For example, she said, a 12,000-square-foot lot could be divided into two lots after a house is torn down. In its place, two McMansions could be built.
She argued that such development would put pressure on water and wastewater systems while limiting municipalities’ ability to regulate the scale of new construction.
“We know that developers have an interest in building larger, more expensive units in order to maximize their profits,” she said.
Mikula disagreed with the assertion that Question 7 would fail to account for water and sewer capacity. He said municipalities could require developers to address capacity problems, such as repairing leaky pipes or redirecting improperly connected sump pumps, as a condition of new construction.
The measure is backed by the state’s corner office, as Gov. Maura Healey touts the move as an important step forward to increase the state’s housing stock.
“Our administration is working every single day to build more homes to lower costs across Massachusetts,” Healey said in a statement. “This ballot question will help move that work forward and make the dream of owning a home a reality for more residents.”
Healey has frequently said that the state needs to build 222,000 new homes by 2035 to meet demand.
But some local planners, including Misch, argue that the measure is too “simplistic” and does not take key local factors into consideration.
Question 7 was spearheaded by the Legalize Starter Homes campaign, launched in 2025 to support the ballot measure. The group raised $1.7 million. Opponents have not reported any formal campaign fundraising.
