Frontage and setbacks
Frontage is the length of a lot that touches the street. The law needs at least 50 feet. A setback is the distance a building must stay from the lot line. The law lets towns keep setback rules.
Question 7 and the 5,000 square foot lot
Election 2026 · Question 7 explainer
Question 7 and the 5,000 square foot lot
Listen: short summary
Election 2026 guide
Short summary read by Kerry Jane. It is not the full article.
Read the summary text
Question 7 is about lot size. It would allow a single family home on lots of five thousand square feet or more, with fifty feet of frontage and public sewer and water, in every city and town except Boston. A Yes vote makes that change. A No vote keeps local zoning rules as they are. Supporters say large minimum lots raise home prices. Opponents say local officials know local land, roads and schools best. As of October twenty sixth, the Yes side has reported about one point seven million dollars, and no committee against is listed. Read the full explainer, with every source and the data, at capeanncurrent.com slash elections. The Cape Ann Current takes no position.
Question 7 asks whether cities and towns must allow one single-family home on a lot of at least 5,000 square feet, if the lot has public sewer and water. Today each town sets its own rules for how much land a home needs. The question also touches an old American debate: should one government make a rule for everyone, or should each community decide?
This explainer takes no position on Question 7. It lays out the law, both sides' arguments, and public data. Figures were checked against the cited sources on Oct. 26, 2026.
Election 2026 guideAll nine ballot questions and the Cape Ann races, in one place.Open the Election 2026 guide
The short version
What the official voter booklet says, in the state's own words, and what it means.
- The official title. “Single Family Homes.” The state's official voter guide, the Secretary of the Commonwealth's 2026 Information for Voters booklet, says what each vote does.
- A Yes vote. The booklet says: “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. The booklet says: “A NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to building single-family homes.”
- The three tests for a lot. The Attorney General's summary says a lot needs three things. It must have at least 5,000 square feet of land. It must have at least 50 feet of frontage, which is the side that touches the street. And it must have access to public sewer and water.
- What towns could still do. The Attorney General's summary says towns could still set reasonable rules on height, distance from neighbors, open space, parking and short-term rentals. The state housing office, the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC in this article), could issue guidance or rules.
- The cost to government. The state's budget office, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, says the law has “no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.” In plain words, it sees no clear effect on state or town budgets.
- The bigger question. Supporters and opponents agree Massachusetts needs more housing. They disagree on who should decide: the state for everyone, or each city and town. Supporters say local rules have made homes too costly and left many people out. Opponents say local officials know local land, roads, sewers and schools best. The next section gives the history and each side's case.
Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, 2026 Information for Voters, Question 7 (source 1), and the booklet's PDF, page 18 (source 2). The summary is by the Attorney General.
An old question: who decides?
Question 7 is about lot size. It also touches a debate the country has had since the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Should a strong central government make one rule for everyone? Or should decisions stay close to home, with each state or town choosing for itself? Americans have argued about this since 1787, and neither answer is new. Supporters and opponents of Question 7 each use this old argument in their own way. People can also favor state rules on one issue and local control on another. This section sets out the documented history. It does not say which side is right.
The national debate
Where the debate began
- Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation on Nov. 15, 1777. They took effect on March 1, 1781, when Maryland ratified, according to the National Archives.
- Under the Articles each state kept every power not expressly given to Congress. The National Archives says Congress could not tax or regulate trade.
- The Constitutional Convention met in May 1787 and redesigned the government. The Constitution took effect in 1789. Massachusetts ratified it in February 1788, by 187 votes to 168, and delegates attached proposed amendments (Teaching American History).
- The Tenth Amendment, added in 1791, says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The two sides in 1787
- Federalists backed the new Constitution. They said the country needed a stronger national government than the Articles allowed. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wrote 85 essays, the Federalist Papers, between October 1787 and August 1788 to win support (Mount Vernon).
- Anti-Federalists wanted power kept with state and local governments, which they saw as closest to the people. The National Constitution Center says they saw a distant national capital as a copy of the remote rule Americans had just left. Elbridge Gerry and Mercy Otis Warren of Massachusetts were among them.
The Massachusetts version: home rule
Dillon's Rule is a legal idea from 1868. Iowa Justice John F. Dillon wrote that a city has only the powers the state clearly gives it. Mass.gov quotes him: “any fair doubt as to the existence of a power is resolved by the courts against the corporation.”
Home rule is the other approach. Massachusetts voters approved the Home Rule Amendment, Article 89 of the state constitution, in 1966. It took effect in 1967, according to the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA). It lets a city or town use any power the Legislature could give it, as long as the action is “not inconsistent with” the constitution or state laws. Some subjects stay with the state alone, including elections, taxes, borrowing and criminal penalties (MMA). Zoning is not on that list. A state law, Chapter 40A, governs it, and the MMA says the Legislature can override local action. So towns have real zoning power, and the state has power over it too.
What this word meansZoning is a set of local rules about what can be built where, and how big a lot must be. A by-law is a town's rule. An ordinance is a city's rule. Manchester-by-the-Sea's zoning by-law says it was passed under both Chapter 40A and Article 89 (Section 1.2).
How the state and towns share zoning power now
| Law | What the state decided | What stayed local |
|---|---|---|
| The Zoning Act (Chapter 40A) | Sets the basic rules for how cities and towns write zoning. It was amended by Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975, according to Manchester-by-the-Sea's by-law. Section 3 lists things local zoning may not block or regulate. Question 7 would add a paragraph to Section 3. | Each city and town writes its own zoning map and rules, including lot sizes. |
| Housing Choice (Chapter 358 of the Acts of 2020) | Lowered the vote needed for certain zoning changes from two thirds to a simple majority (Mass.gov). | Towns still decide whether to make those changes. |
| MBTA Communities law (Section 3A) | Requires 177 communities to have at least one district of reasonable size where multi-family housing is allowed without a special permit, at a density of at least 15 units per acre (Mass.gov). Towns that do not comply cannot use four state funding programs. | Each town chooses where the district goes and how it is designed, within the rules. |
| Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) law, 2024 | Signed Aug. 6, 2024 as part of the Affordable Homes Act. Since Feb. 2, 2025, one ADU up to 900 square feet is allowed by right in single-family districts (Mass.gov). | Towns may still set reasonable rules on things like setbacks. They cannot require the owner to live on site or be related to the renter. |
| Starter Home Zoning Districts (Chapter 40Y) | A voluntary tool. Final rules took effect March 13, 2026. A town that opts in allows qualifying starter homes by right (Mass.gov). | Entirely optional. A town decides whether to adopt it. |
One difference: each of these state rules came from a bill passed by the Legislature. Question 7 would instead come from a petition and a direct vote of the people. Ballotpedia counts no earlier housing ballot measure from 2006 to 2025 that addressed zoning or permitting.
Supporters say this is the first zoning reform measure put straight to voters in any state (Governing).
How each side frames the question
These are their arguments, not findings of this article. Each is attributed to the people who made it.
Supporters say: local zoning rules create unequal access to homes
- Wesley Lima's argument in the voter booklet says large minimum lots raise prices, and that “Anyone who needs a low-cost, single-family suburban home is all but locked out of the market.”
- Jesse Kanson-Benanav of Abundant Housing Massachusetts said, as quoted by Boston.com: “Because of these very inflated minimum lot sizes across Massachusetts, we have killed the starter home.”
- The booklet argument says young adults, seniors who want to downsize and families pushed to cheaper places bear the cost of these rules. Supporters describe this as unequal access to housing.
- They point to research cited by WBUR: a Harvard study found larger minimum lots raised house prices, and a Pew study found smaller lots produced more affordable new homes in Houston.
- They say a statewide floor is needed because, in their view, many towns have not changed their rules on their own.
Sources: voter booklet (1); Boston.com (7); WBUR (6). The third and fifth points summarize the supporters' public position, not direct quotes.
Opponents say: local officials are best placed to decide
- Adam Chapdelaine's argument in the voter booklet says local officials “are directly responsible to taxpayers” and weigh “public safety, traffic, water and sewer capacity, schools, and environmental protection.” He leads the MMA, which says “Zoning decisions are inherently local” (Ballotpedia).
- Ali DiMatteo of the MMA says: “Just because infrastructure exists, doesn't mean that capacity exists.” The MMA says many water and sewer systems are near their limits.
- The Republican Party of Massachusetts says “a statewide mandate ignores local conditions and neighborhood character,” according to Ballotpedia.
- Opponents note the law does not require homes to be affordable, so market rate or high priced homes could result (Chapdelaine, per WBUR).
- The Legislature's committee majority, which recommended no action, said unclear wording on home size and infrastructure could lead to uneven results from town to town (voter booklet).
Sources: voter booklet (1); Ballotpedia (5); WBUR (6).
Two questions sit under both arguments. Which level of government is closest to the people affected? And which level can fix a problem that crosses town lines? Each side answers these differently. This article does not answer them.
What is on the ballot
The kind of question, the exact words, and what could change after a vote.
| What the sources say | |
|---|---|
| Kind of question | An initiative petition for a law. Citizens wrote it and collected signatures. It is not a change to the constitution. Ballotpedia calls it an “indirect initiated state statute,” which means the Legislature gets the first chance to act on it. |
| Petition number | Initiative Petition 25-03, House 5000, titled “An Act to allow single-family homes on small lots in areas with adequate infrastructure.” |
| What law it changes | Section 3 of Chapter 40A, the Zoning Act, by adding one paragraph. |
| Where it applies | Cities and towns under Chapter 40A. Not Boston, which does not fall under Chapter 40A (WBUR, Boston.com). Only lots with public sewer and public water. |
| How it passes | A majority of votes on the question, and the Yes votes must equal at least 30 percent of all ballots cast in the election (Ballotpedia). |
| Effective date | The proposed law says it takes effect “as provided in Article 48” of the state constitution. WBUR reported that this means about one month after the election. |
| Who can change it later | The Legislature keeps the power to amend or repeal a law passed by initiative (Article 48, as noted by the Supreme Judicial Court in its April 27, 2026 opinion, SJC-13908). HLC could write guidance or regulations. Courts would settle disputes over what the words mean. |
| Lawsuits | Ballotpedia lists no lawsuit about Question 7 as of October 2026. The Legislature's committee noted the Attorney General's certification did not review whether the petition is constitutional, and neither she nor the courts have reviewed that question (Majority Report, voter booklet). |
| Cost to government | The Executive Office for Administration and Finance said: “If the proposed law enables the growth of housing in communities, it could provide positive new growth revenues to municipalities. However, it is difficult to project the potential scale of new growth tied to the proposed law.” It concluded there are no discernible material fiscal consequences. |
The exact words of the proposed law
Section 1. Section 3 of chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws … is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph:
“No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit, unreasonably restrict or require a special permit or other discretionary zoning approval for the use of land or structures for a single-family residence in a zoning district that allows residential uses; provided, that the single-family residence is fully contained within a lot measuring equal to or greater than five thousand square feet in area and with equal to or greater than fifty feet of frontage and which has access to public sewer service and public water service; and provided further, that the use of land or structures for such a single-family residence under this paragraph may be subject to reasonable regulations, including, but not limited to, regulations concerning dimensional setbacks and the bulk and height of structures and may be subject to restrictions and prohibitions on short-term rental. The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities may issue guidelines or promulgate regulations to administer this paragraph.”
Section 2. “This act shall take effect as provided in Article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, as amended.”
Text from the petition as certified for the ballot, published by the Attorney General's office on Mass.gov (source 3). The voter booklet prints the full text on pages 36 to 44; we could not view those pages in the file we opened, so compare against the booklet. The Attorney General's summary (source 4) lists height, distance from neighbors, open space, parking and short-term rentals. The law itself says “including, but not limited to,” so its list of allowed rules is open ended.
Words that matter
Special permit and by right
A special permit is approval from a town board, which can say no. A project is allowed “by right” if it meets the written rules, with no special permit.
Words the law leaves open
The law says a lot “has access to” public sewer and water, and that towns may use “reasonable” rules. It defines neither phrase. The Legislature's committee raised worries about how infrastructure would be judged. HLC guidance and courts would fill the gap.
How we got here
From the first arguments about central power to the vote on Nov. 3.
History of “who decides”
State housing and zoning laws
The Question 7 petition
Congress adopts the Articles of Confederation. They take effect March 1, 1781.
The Constitutional Convention meets to redesign the national government.
Massachusetts ratifies the Constitution, 187 to 168.
Massachusetts voters approve the Home Rule Amendment, Article 89. It takes effect in 1967.
The Zoning Act, Chapter 40A, is amended by Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975.
Voters statewide approve ending rent control, Question 9, 51.3 percent to 48.7 percent.
The Housing Choice changes and the MBTA Communities law (Section 3A) arrive through the 2020 economic development law, Chapter 358.
The governor signs the Affordable Homes Act, which includes the ADU law.
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upholds the MBTA Communities law in Attorney General v. Town of Milton, but says the state's compliance guidelines had to be reissued as formal regulations.
The ADU provisions take effect.
Andrew Mikula files the citizen petition, according to Boston.com.
The state certifies 89,216 valid signatures. 74,574 were needed.
The petition is filed as House Bill 5000.
Final rules for voluntary Starter Home Zoning Districts take effect.
A legislative hearing is held on March 16. The MMA testifies against.
A majority of the Legislature's Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions recommends the Legislature “take no action.”
The deadline passes with no action by the Legislature. Supporters must gather more signatures.
Sponsors submit 16,930 valid added signatures. 12,429 were needed. The question is certified for the ballot.
The Secretary of the Commonwealth numbers it Question 7.
Election Day.
If approved, the law takes effect about a month after the election, according to WBUR.
Sources: National Archives (14); Teaching American History (15); Mass.gov (12, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23); MMA (13); Bowditch & Dutton and Boston Bar Journal (20); Ballotpedia (5); Boston.com (7); Secretary of the Commonwealth (1); electionstats.state.ma.us (36); Manchester-by-the-Sea zoning by-law (28).
What each vote would bring
Concrete effects, who is affected, and what we do not know yet.
If Yes wins
- What changes. In every city and town except Boston, a town could not block a single-family home that meets the three tests. It also could not make the owner get a special permit. The tests are 5,000 square feet, 50 feet of frontage, and public sewer and water. Tufts University's Center for State Policy Analysis describes the measure as overriding local restrictions.
- Who is affected. Owners of lots that now fail a town's larger minimum, builders, neighbors, and town boards that review projects.
- How many homes. Tufts estimates about 750 added homes a year, in a range of 350 to 1,200. The campaign's chair estimates 2,200 to 5,700 a year (chart below).
- What stays the same. Towns keep reasonable rules on setbacks, height and bulk, and can limit short-term rentals. Lots without public sewer and water are not covered. Boston is not covered. The law does not require any home to be affordable.
- Cost to government. The state says no discernible material fiscal consequences.
- Uncertain: how HLC would define “access” to sewer and water; whether owners could split large lots; how courts would read “reasonable” rules; what the homes would sell for.
If No wins
- What changes. Nothing in state law. Each city and town keeps setting its own minimum lot sizes under Chapter 40A.
- Who is affected. No one's rules change. Owners, builders and town boards work under today's local zoning.
- How many homes. No added homes from this law. Other tools continue. They are the MBTA Communities law, the ADU law, the lower vote needed for certain zoning changes, and the voluntary Starter Home Zoning Districts. HLC counted 2,084 approved ADUs and 2,824 applications for 2025 and the first half of 2026.
- What stays the same. Today's local lot sizes, frontage rules and special permit steps. A town could still lower its own minimums by a vote of its town meeting or city council, and some such changes now need only a simple majority.
- Cost to government. None from this law.
- Uncertain: whether the Legislature or backers would try again, in a bill or a later ballot. Neither has announced a plan in the sources we reviewed.
Two estimates of how many homes
The two estimates do not overlap. Tufts estimates 350 to 1,200 added homes a year, with a central estimate of 750. The campaign estimates 2,200 to 5,700 a year. The black mark is the Tufts central estimate.
Sources: Tufts University Center for State Policy Analysis (8), reported by Banker & Tradesman on June 9, 2026 (9); campaign estimate attributed to Mikula in WBUR, Oct. 7, 2026 (6). Tufts also estimates single-family construction would rise about 15 percent and all housing development about 5 percent, with about 200,000 parcels statewide gaining new building options. Tufts says its estimate rests on judgments about how likely owners are to build, which it calls contestable, and warns that impediments to construction are “numerous and powerful.” WBUR says Mikula gives the state's goal as 222,000 new homes over a decade. Over ten years, the campaign's range would be about 10 to 26 percent of that goal (our arithmetic); WBUR describes it as about 20 percent.
The arguments, in their own words
From the Secretary of the Commonwealth's 2026 Information for Voters booklet. Neither the state nor the Current certifies these claims.
Argument for
- “Massachusetts is the hardest state in the country for young adults to buy a home.”
- “The middle class is shrinking because housing costs have doubled since 2014.”
- Many seniors “are stuck in their homes without somewhere nearby to downsize.”
- People, especially young people, are leaving for cheaper housing, which the argument says is “separating extended families and hurting our economy.”
- Large minimum lots raise prices, cut single-family building and push builders to oversized homes to “recoup land costs.”
- “Anyone who needs a low-cost, single-family suburban home is all but locked out of the market.”
- A Yes vote lowers minimum lots to 5,000 square feet “in places with sufficient infrastructure.”
Written by Wesley Lima, Legalize Starter Homes.
Argument against
- “Massachusetts needs more housing, but this statewide ballot measure is the wrong approach.”
- The measure would apply “regardless of existing neighborhoods, infrastructure or environmental conditions.”
- “Local officials are directly responsible to taxpayers,” and the measure would remove significant oversight.
- Local officials weigh “public safety, traffic, water and sewer capacity, schools, and environmental protection.”
- The measure “replaces thoughtful local planning with a one-size-fits-all mandate” across all 351 cities and towns.
- Housing growth should come “through local planning and collaboration,” not a statewide mandate.
- “Vote NO on question 7.”
Written by Adam Chapdelaine, Massachusetts Municipal Association.
The best case each side makes in public
Supporters
- Kanson-Benanav (Abundant Housing Massachusetts) says the state has an “extreme shortage” of homes and that smaller homes would help first-time buyers, young people and seniors who want to downsize (WBUR).
- Mikula says large lot rules push builders toward “a giant McMansion just to justify the cost of assembling so much land” (WBUR).
- Gov. Maura Healey says the measure will help “more young people afford to stay in Massachusetts” (Ballotpedia).
- Daniel Hornung of Airbnb's Housing Accelerator calls it “the kind of common sense reform that will unlock more housing” (Ballotpedia).
Opponents
- Chapdelaine (MMA) says the measure removes local decisions, does not guarantee affordable units, and that its water and sewer test ignores whether a town's whole system can handle new demand. He says the MBTA Communities and ADU laws should be given time to work (WBUR).
- The MMA says “many municipal water and sewer systems are already at or near maximum capacity” (Ballotpedia).
- The Legislature's committee majority noted “ambiguity around size of structures” and lack of guidance on how infrastructure would be judged, which it said “could result in uneven application across jurisdictions” (voter booklet).
- The Berkshire Eagle's editorial board argued the measure does not ensure starter homes and that the sewer and water test limits its reach in rural areas (Ballotpedia).
Who is campaigning, and the money
Backing a Yes vote
- Committees: Legalize Starter Homes; Abundant Housing Legalize Starter Homes; Democratic Socialists For a Fair Massachusetts (a small committee that reports $50 raised and is listed under several questions).
- Money (OCPF, as of Oct. 26, 2026): the two main committees together reported $1,724,140 raised and $1,596,612 spent, with $127,528 cash on hand. Legalize Starter Homes reported $1,474,140 raised and Abundant Housing Legalize Starter Homes reported $250,000. In kind help (goods and services, counted separately and not as money raised) was $27,715 across the two. Chart in the numbers section.
- Largest donors named by Ballotpedia (through Oct. 20, 2026, donor amounts, not committee totals): Greater Boston Real Estate Board ($350,000), Massachusetts Association of Realtors PAC ($350,000), Welcoming Neighbors Network ($250,000), Massachusetts Association of Realtors ($150,000), Eastern Bank ($100,000), Marcus Partners LLC ($100,000).
- Officials: Gov. Healey, Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss, several state senators and representatives, and the mayors of Holyoke, New Bedford, Lynn, Salem and Cambridge.
- Groups: Democratic Party of Massachusetts, American Planning Association Massachusetts Chapter, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Association of Realtors, Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Massachusetts, Greater Boston Real Estate Board, Charles River Regional Chamber, Abundant Housing Massachusetts, Progressive Massachusetts, and Airbnb.
- Editorials: The Boston Globe (Oct. 9), The New York Times (May 30), Boston Business Journal (Oct. 14).
- HousingWire reported that Republican candidate for governor Mike Minogue also supports it.
Backing a No vote
- Committees: No committee registered with OCPF to oppose Question 7 as of Oct. 26, 2026.
- Money (OCPF, as of Oct. 26, 2026): $0 raised or spent, because no opposition committee is registered.
- Groups: Massachusetts Municipal Association (which represents the state's 351 cities and towns and is the most active critic in the sources), Republican Party of Massachusetts, Americans for Tax Reform.
- Editorials: The Berkshire Eagle.
- Officials: The sources we reviewed list no elected official who has spoken against it by name.
- The lists are different lengths only because the sources name more groups on one side. Length does not measure strength or how many voters agree.
Sources: OCPF ballot question committee reports (39), retrieved Oct. 26, 2026; Ballotpedia (5), WBUR (6), HousingWire (11) for donors, groups and endorsers. OCPF is the state's campaign finance office. Check ocpf.us for the latest totals.
The numbers
Housing costs, local lot rules, building permits, affordable housing and cost burden. Every figure shows its source, date and unit.
Home prices and rents
Median home value, 2020 to 2024 (Census, in dollars)
Massachusetts
Gloucester
Rockport
Essex
Manchester-by-the-Sea
The Census Bureau's five year estimate for 2020 to 2024 puts the median home value at 562,100 dollars statewide, 600,600 in Gloucester, 746,100 in Rockport, 897,400 in Essex and 942,000 in Manchester-by-the-Sea.
Sources: Census Bureau QuickFacts, ACS 2020 to 2024 (state, Gloucester, Rockport, Manchester-by-the-Sea); Census Reporter, ACS 2024 five year estimates (Essex, margin of error about plus or minus $59,056). Median value is what owners say their home would sell for, not a sale price. Bars start at zero.
| Place | Median home value | Median gross rent (monthly) | Median household income | Owner-occupied homes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts | $562,100 | $1,762 | $103,960 | 62.5% |
| Gloucester | $600,600 | $1,411 | $83,883 | 63.9% |
| Rockport | $746,100 | $1,851 | $96,250 | 68.3% |
| Essex | $897,400 | Not found | $157,147 | Not found |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | $942,000 | $1,811 | $206,389 | 74.7% |
Statewide, the median monthly rent is 1,762 dollars, and about 62.5 percent of homes are lived in by their owners. In Cape Ann, median rent runs from 1,411 dollars in Gloucester to 1,851 dollars in Rockport. We did not find Essex's rent in a source we could open.
Source: Census Bureau QuickFacts and Census Reporter, ACS 2020 to 2024 five year estimates, accessed Oct. 26, 2026. Incomes are in 2024 dollars.
Recent sale prices. The Warren Group, a real estate data firm, reported the statewide median single-family sale price was $665,000 in May 2026, about the same as $665,250 in May 2025. Its median condominium price was $570,000 (release of June 17, 2026). Its September 2025 median was $625,000. For Rockport, the town's 2024 Housing Production Plan cites the Massachusetts Association of Realtors: a $849,500 median single-family price for 2023 and $424,500 for condominiums.
Minimum lot sizes in the four towns
Each bar below is the smallest lot a town's zoning allows for a single-family home in one district. The black line marks 5,000 square feet, the size in Question 7. The frontage needed is in parentheses. Numbers come from each town's zoning text or a copy of it, as noted under each chart.
Gloucester (City zoning ordinance, Section 3.2.1)
R-5 (5,000 sq ft, 50 ft frontage)
R-10 (65 ft)
R-20 (80 ft)
R-30 (80 ft)
R-40 and RC-40 (100 ft)
R-80 (100 ft)
Source: Gloucester Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.2.1, as published by Zoneomics (24), checked against the 2017 Gloucester Housing Production Plan (25). The City website blocked our automated access, so confirm with the Planning Department. Unit: square feet. Bars start at zero.
Rockport (Zoning By-Law, Section VI)
Downtown, D (30 ft)
General, G (50 ft)
Residential, R, and Semi-Residential, SMR (50 ft)
Residential A, RA (75 ft)
Single Residential, SR (75 ft)
Single Residential AA, SRAA (150 ft)
Source: Rockport Zoning By-Law, updated Dec. 16, 2025, Section VI, Schedule of Area and Dimensions (26), one-family lots. Unit: square feet.
Essex (Zoning By-Laws, Chapter VI)
Central Conomo Point (40 ft)
Southern Conomo Point, seasonal cottage (60 ft)
Downtown (75 ft)
Southern Conomo Point, single-family (100 ft)
General Use District (150 ft)
Source: Town of Essex By-Laws Chapter VI, Version 26.1, Planning Board working copy updated July 20, 2026 (27). The General Use District minimum is 30,000 square feet on streets that existed on June 7, 1972. Conomo Point lots have special rules. Unit: square feet.
Manchester-by-the-Sea (Zoning By-Law, Section 5.4)
Residence D (60 ft)
Single Residence B (75 ft)
Single Residence A (150 ft)
Single Residence C (150 ft)
Single Residence E (150 ft)
Source: Manchester-by-the-Sea Zoning By-Law dated April 27, 2026, Section 5.4 (28). The General, Town Center and Harbor's Edge districts also list 6,000 square feet and 60 feet. Unit: square feet.
Gloucester, Rockport and Essex each have at least one district at 5,000 square feet. Manchester-by-the-Sea's smallest is 6,000. Large minimums are common: Essex's General Use District is 40,000 square feet, and Manchester has districts at 45,000 and 90,000. WBUR, citing the National Zoning Atlas, reports that more than half of Massachusetts properties zoned for single-family homes require at least 40,000 square feet.
Reading these tablesThese are the rules in each town's text. Question 7's tests also include public sewer and water. Whether a large lot could be split into smaller ones would depend on separate subdivision rules and on HLC guidance. That is uncertain. Manchester-by-the-Sea's by-law also protects some older lots with at least 5,000 square feet and 50 feet of frontage (Section 5.8). Rockport's does the same for lots with at least 5,000 square feet or 50 feet of frontage (Section VI.C.3). We checked the by-law text: it says “at least five thousand square feet of area or fifty feet of frontage,” so a lot needs only one of the two, and it says lots with less need a special permit (source 26). Manchester-by-the-Sea's rule uses both numbers.
Other statewide counts. The state's 2025 to 2029 Comprehensive Housing Plan, quoted by Ballotpedia, says much of Massachusetts is zoned for single-family homes with a minimum lot of one half to two acres. HousingWire reports that more than half of Eastern Massachusetts towns require at least one acre. WBUR, citing the National Zoning Atlas, says about a quarter of single-family properties require two acres. The sources count in different ways.
Homes built: permits
| Place | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 5 year total | Of which single-family |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gloucester | 46 | 55 | 81 | 79* | 77 | 338 | 109 |
| Rockport | 7 | 31 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 58 | 29 |
| Essex | 9 | 8* | 9 | 3** | 0 | 29 | 25 |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | 7 | 14 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 41 | 41 |
| Massachusetts | 19,853 | 16,830 | 13,214 | 14,338 | 12,477 | 76,712 | 29,182 |
Over five years, Gloucester permitted 338 homes, Rockport 58, Essex 29 and Manchester-by-the-Sea 41. Statewide, yearly permits fell from 19,853 in 2021 to 12,477 in 2025.
Units authorized by building permits. * The Census file lists zero months reported for this town and year, which means the figure may be an estimate. ** Eleven months reported. Statewide total is the sum of the 351 places in the file.
Homes permitted over five years, per 1,000 year-round homes (2021 to 2025)
Gloucester
Rockport
Essex
Manchester-by-the-Sea
Massachusetts
Over five years, Gloucester permitted about 24 homes for every 1,000 existing homes, compared with about 16 in Rockport, 19 in Essex, 18 in Manchester-by-the-Sea and 27 statewide.
Sources: Census Bureau Building Permits Survey, annual place files for 2021 to 2025 (31); existing homes are 2020 Census year-round units from the state Subsidized Housing Inventory (34). Our own arithmetic. Gloucester's figure includes multi-family buildings, including a 30 unit building permitted in 2025. Bars start at zero.
Affordable housing on the state list
Share of year-round homes on the Subsidized Housing Inventory
Gloucester
Rockport
Manchester-by-the-Sea
Essex
Massachusetts (all 351 places)
As of Sept. 30, 2025, 8.04 percent of Gloucester's year-round homes were on the state's affordable housing list, along with 5.39 percent in Rockport, 5.02 percent in Manchester-by-the-Sea and 2.58 percent in Essex. The state goal in Chapter 40B is 10 percent. The black line marks 10 percent.
Source: Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory, as of Sept. 30, 2025 (32). Gloucester has 1,117 qualifying units out of 13,896 year-round homes; Rockport 192 of 3,565; Manchester-by-the-Sea 115 of 2,293; Essex 40 of 1,549 (2020 Census counts). The statewide figure is our sum of all 351 places: 300,468 of 2,889,863. The inventory counts only deed restricted and certain other subsidized homes. Bars start at zero.
Cost burden
Cost burdened means a household pays more than 30 percent of its income for housing. The sources below use different years and methods, so the town numbers should not be compared with each other.
| Place | All households | Owners | Renters | Source and years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts | 36.1% | 26.8% | 52.4% | ACS 2024, as reported by USAFacts |
| Gloucester | 43% | 41% | 45% | 2017 Housing Production Plan, ACS 2010 to 2014 |
| Rockport | 38.7% | 46.4% | 31% | 2024 Housing Production Plan, HUD data for 2016 to 2020. The plan also says about 27% using updated census data, so its numbers conflict. |
| Essex | About one third | Not found | Not found | 2026 Housing Production Plan, ACS 2018 to 2022 |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | About 30% | 25.9% | 43.5% | 2020 Housing Production Plan, ACS 2018 |
Statewide in 2024, about 36 percent of households were cost burdened, including about 52 percent of renters and 27 percent of owners. Town plans report between roughly 30 and 43 percent, using older data.
Sewer and water: where Question 7 could apply
The law covers only lots with public sewer and water. Here is what each town's own plan says.
| Town | What the plan says | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Gloucester | Share of the city on public sewer: not found | 2017 Housing Production Plan did not report it |
| Rockport | Public sewer serves about 82 percent of properties. Public water reaches about 95 percent. About 8 percent of properties are not connected to available sewer. | 2024 Housing Production Plan |
| Essex | “Limited municipal water and sewer,” so many residents rely on wells or septic systems. | 2026 Housing Production Plan |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | The sewer system serves about two thirds of the community, mainly the central areas. Outlying areas use septic. Water is available to all residents. | 2020 Housing Production Plan |
Rockport reports about 82 percent of properties on public sewer, Manchester-by-the-Sea about two thirds of the community, and Essex describes limited sewer. For Gloucester we did not find a figure. WBUR reports a state Department of Environmental Protection map shows large parts of the North Shore, the Cape and western Massachusetts lack public sewer.
How many lots would be affected?
Statewide: Tufts estimates about 200,000 parcels would gain new building options. Boston.com's summary of the Tufts work also mentions about 850,000 parcels in scope; we did not find that figure on Tufts's own page. By town: not found. Tufts's page lists no North Shore or Essex County findings, and we found no public town by town count of lots that meet the three tests. Without a sewer and water map and lot data for each town, we will not guess.
What the polls show
Polls on Question 7 (percent)
SupportOpposeUndecided or other
Polls disagree. The newest, from Suffolk and the Boston Globe in mid October, found 41.2 percent support and 40.6 percent opposed. A UMass Amherst and WCVB poll a week earlier found 65 percent support and 21 percent opposed. The wording of the question, the pollster and the group sampled can all change a result.
Sources: each pollster's own published results (40 to 44). Undecided includes people who said they did not understand the question or declined to answer. The MassINC figure for undecided was not reported; 25 percent is what remains after support and oppose. The UNH rows count neutral and not sure answers as undecided. Rows may differ from 100 by rounding. Ballotpedia's poll table (5) lists more polls, and we kept only those we could match to the pollster's own numbers. Two other polls were paid for by supporters. One is Legalize Starter Homes' August poll, with about 63 percent support (Governing). The other is a March YouGov poll sponsored by Abundant Housing Massachusetts, at 58 percent to 21 percent (Banker & Tradesman). Polls paid for by a campaign are listed here apart from independent polls.
Money raised
Campaign money reported to OCPF, as of Oct. 26, 2026 (dollars)
Yes committees: raised
Yes committees: spent
No: no committee registered with OCPF
OCPF, as of Oct. 26, 2026: committees backing a Yes vote reported about 1.72 million dollars raised and about 1.60 million dollars spent. No committee had registered with OCPF to oppose the measure, though the Municipal Association and others have spoken against it.
Source: OCPF ballot question committee reports (39), retrieved Oct. 26, 2026, summing the 2025 and 2026 reports for Legalize Starter Homes and Abundant Housing Legalize Starter Homes. In kind help, shown separately and not counted as raised: $27,715. Cash on hand: $127,528. A third small committee, Democratic Socialists For a Fair Massachusetts, reports $50 raised and is not in the bars. Bars start at zero; the scale ends at $1.8 million.
A past statewide vote on a housing rule
In 1994, Massachusetts voters decided Question 9, which ended rent control. It is a different subject, but it was also a statewide vote on a housing rule for cities and towns. A past vote does not predict this one.
| 1994 Question 9, rent control | Yes | No | Yes share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts | 1,034,599 | 980,736 | 51.3% |
| Gloucester | 4,837 | 5,074 | 48.8% |
| Rockport | 1,727 | 1,736 | 49.9% |
| Essex | 2,123 | 1,057 | 66.8% |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | 1,400 | 1,089 | 56.2% |
In 1994 the statewide Yes vote was 51.3 percent. Essex voted 66.8 percent Yes, Manchester-by-the-Sea 56.2 percent, Rockport 49.9 percent and Gloucester 48.8 percent.
Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, electionstats.state.ma.us, 1994 Question 9, town results (36). Yes share is Yes divided by Yes plus No; blank ballots are left out.
How other states handle it
No other state matches Question 7 exactly. Here are five laws, with documented facts.
Texas · SB 15 (2025)
A cap on required lot size
Signed June 20, 2025 and effective Sept. 1, 2025. In new subdivisions of five acres or more, a covered city may not require a residential lot larger than 3,000 square feet, wider than 30 feet or deeper than 75 feet. It covers cities of at least 150,000 people in counties of at least 300,000, about 19 cities by the Texas Tribune's estimate (reported by KWTX). The Senate passed it unanimously and the House 78 to 57. Rep. Gary Gates, the House sponsor, said: “These are homes your employees, your kids and grandkids can afford.” Rep. Ramon Romero said cities should decide for themselves.
How it differs: it applies only to new large subdivisions, not existing neighborhoods. Question 7 would apply in residential districts statewide. Question 7's number is 5,000 square feet, not 3,000.
California · SB 9 (2021)
Two homes and lot splits
Signed Sept. 16, 2021 and effective Jan. 1, 2022. It allows two homes on a single-family parcel and lets an owner split a parcel in two. Each new parcel must be at least 40 percent of the original and at least 1,200 square feet, unless a local rule allows smaller. Qualifying projects are approved without hearings. For lot splits, the applicant must say they intend to live in one unit for at least three years. Local agencies may apply objective standards (Holland & Knight).
How it differs: it works through lot splits and extra units, not a single minimum lot size.
Oregon · HB 2001 (2019)
Middle housing in residential areas
Passed in 2019. Cities of 10,000 to 25,000 outside the Portland area had to allow duplexes by June 30, 2021. Larger cities had to allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters and townhouses by June 30, 2022 (Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development).
How it differs: it sets housing types allowed, not a lot size.
Washington · E2SHB 1110 (2023)
Minimum homes per lot
Effective July 2023. Cities with at least 75,000 people must allow at least four units per lot, and six near major transit. Cities of 25,000 to 75,000 must allow at least two, and four near major transit (MRSC).
How it differs: it sets a minimum number of units, tiered by city population.
Montana · 2023 laws
Duplexes, accessory units and planning
SB 323, effective Jan. 1, 2024, requires cities over 5,000 to allow duplexes on lots where single-family homes are allowed. SB 528, also effective Jan. 1, 2024, requires cities and towns with zoning to allow at least one accessory dwelling unit on a lot with a single-family home. SB 382, the Montana Land Use Planning Act, requires larger cities to use at least five of 14 listed housing strategies, one of which is “Eliminate or reduce minimum lot sizes” (Montana Legislature summary). On March 17, 2026, the Montana Supreme Court unanimously upheld the laws it reviewed (NBC Montana).
How it differs: lot size is only one of several options a city may pick.
Ballotpedia, citing the Boston Globe, notes that Texas, Idaho and Maine have passed laws on minimum lot sizes. We did not open the Idaho or Maine laws, so we give no detail. We did not find verified results data on how these laws have changed building. Supporters of Question 7 say it is the first zoning reform measure put straight to voters in any state (Governing).
Where people agree, and what no one knows yet
Both sides say Massachusetts needs more housing. They differ on how, and on who decides.
The state needs more housing
Chapdelaine's argument says, “Massachusetts needs more housing.” The Legislature's committee majority acknowledged the state's housing shortage and supported expanding housing opportunities. Supporters say the same.
Water and sewer matter
The Yes argument says the change applies “in places with sufficient infrastructure.” The No argument names water and sewer capacity. They differ on whether the law's “access” test is enough.
Local rules on size and shape can stay
The law lets towns regulate setbacks, bulk, height and short-term rentals. The committee majority and opponents asked for more clarity on home size. Supporters point to the limits written into the text.
Other laws are already in motion
Both sides refer to the MBTA Communities and ADU laws. Chapdelaine says they should be given time. Supporters present Question 7 as an added step. HLC counts 2,084 approved ADUs for 2025 and early 2026.
Open questions nobody can answer yet
- How many homes? Estimates run from 350 to 1,200 a year (Tufts) to 2,200 to 5,700 a year (the campaign).
- What does “access to” sewer and water mean? A pipe at the street, or spare capacity in the system? The law does not say.
- Could large lots be split? Tufts counts many large lots that could be split. The text does not settle how the law fits with separate subdivision rules.
- Would the homes be affordable? The law does not require it. Supporters say smaller lots mean smaller, less costly homes. Opponents say market rate or high priced homes could be built.
- What would it cost schools and services? The state's fiscal statement found no discernible material fiscal consequence. The No argument lists schools and services among local concerns. We found no study of school costs.
- Would it hold up in court, and would the Legislature change it? The Attorney General did not review whether it is constitutional. The Legislature can amend a voter approved law.
What it means on Cape Ann
Town by town: the rules now and what we could not find. Home values, permits, the affordable housing share and sewer and water for each town are in the numbers section above.
Gloucester
City of Gloucester
- Smallest single-family lot: 5,000 square feet and 50 feet frontage in R-5. Largest: 80,000 in R-80.
- MBTA Communities: The city's 3A site lists “Interim Compliance” and a special election on April 24, 2025. The result was not on the page we opened.
- Lots affected and sewer share: not found.
Rockport
Town of Rockport
- Smallest single-family lot: 5,000 square feet and 30 feet frontage in the Downtown district. Largest: 40,000 and 150 feet in SRAA.
- MBTA Communities: the 2024 plan says the town must zone for 657 multi-family units across 32 acres.
- Lots affected: not found.
Essex
Town of Essex
- Most common rule: 40,000 square feet and 150 feet frontage in the General Use District (30,000 on streets that existed in 1972). Downtown: 10,000 and 75 feet. Conomo Point has special rules down to 5,000.
- Housing plan: strategy 19 of the 2026 plan recommends reducing minimum lot sizes, especially for single-family homes.
- MBTA Communities: Town Meeting changed the Downtown District in November 2025 to comply; the district must allow at least 83 units (2026 plan).
- Lots affected: not found. The town posts its zoning chapter as a Planning Board working copy.
Manchester-by-the-Sea
Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea
- Smallest lot in a Residence district: 6,000 square feet and 60 feet frontage in Residence D. Others run from 15,000 to 90,000, most with 150 feet of frontage.
- MBTA Communities status and lots affected: not found.
What Question 7 would touch. In Gloucester's R-5 district, the lot and frontage numbers already match the question's tests. In Essex, Manchester-by-the-Sea and much of Rockport, many districts ask for more land than 5,000 square feet. Where those districts have public sewer and water, the text of Question 7 would put the state's 5,000 square foot rule above the town's larger minimum for lots that qualify. How HLC and the courts would read “access” and “reasonable” is not settled. Where there is no public sewer and water, it would not apply. How many lots that is, we cannot say.
Fifth Essex District candidates. We found no verified public statements by the candidates on Question 7, so none are quoted here. Their answers to the Current's questions are on the election guide when posted.
Keep reading
The Current is covering all nine statewide questions.