From left: Max Woolf of the Charles River Regional Commerce, Sheri Kassirer of Building a Better Wellesley, Jesse Kanson-Benanav of Abundant Housing Massachusetts and Andrew Mikula of the Legalize Starter Homes campaign testify before the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions on Monday, March 16, 2026. Photo by Alison Kuznitz | State House News Service
Lawmakers voiced skepticism Monday that a potentially mandatory zoning change enabling home construction on smaller lots could ease the state’s housing affordability crisis, and a municipal trade association opposed the potential ballot question to boost housing production.
Housing advocates say an initiative petition allowing starter homes to be built on smaller lots would create a new tool to alleviate housing shortages. The measure could boost opportunities for homeownership, staunch an outmigration of younger residents and help seniors downsize while staying in their communities, proponents say, by rolling back lot-size rules many suburbs use to prevent new housing construction.
But the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which represents cities and towns, urged the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions to take no action on the measure, warning it would bypass local control over zoning reforms, strain at-capacity infrastructure, and benefit special interests who are behind the effort.
“Any attempt to preempt this local process with a one-size-fits-all policy strips local residents and officials of their role and their voice,” MMA Executive Director Adam Chapdelaine said, adding preemption “grows a sense of distrust and catalyzes areas of resistance.”
Measure Would Tackle ‘McMansions’
The measure would be binding for municipalities, said campaign leader Andrew Mikula, a senior housing fellow at the Pioneer Institute. The sole exception is for Boston, which has its own zoning statute, said Chris Kluchman, undersecretary at the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities.
Under the initiative petition, single-family homes could be built on lots that are at least 5,000 square feet with at least 50 feet of street frontage, and have access to public sewer and water services. Results of a poll released earlier this month appears to show widespread support for the idea.
Kluchman said municipalities “would not be forced to amend their zoning” to comply with the potential voter law, though they “must allow for land divisions as small as 5,000 square feet regardless of the minimum lot sizes established in local zoning.” Municipalities can choose to add “reasonable regulations,” such as for dimensional setbacks, bulk and height.
Mikula said “many” suburban communities require minimum lot sizes of 15,000 to 20,000 square feet, forcing developers to build “giant McMansions” or block-sized apartment buildings to make the finances work.
About 2,200 to 5,700 starter homes could be built annually under the measure, Mikula said. Overall, the policy would create up to 700,000 new buildable lots statewide, he told lawmakers.
The initiative may not immediately impact 60 communities that don’t have public sewer services, Mikula said.
“Some will say that our ballot measure is a one-size-fits-all solution, but the reality is it should be the bare minimum of every municipality that expects to participate in a metropolitan economy in the 21st century,” Mikula said. He added, “I will also say that this is only a one-size-fits-all solution if municipalities don’t go even further themselves, which they should.”
Senators Skeptical of Measure
Committee co-chair Sen. Cindy Friedman said she was confused why the measure stipulates the lot size but not the size of the intended starter home. The Arlington Democrat pointed out that “very, very large” and “very, very expensive” homes are being built on small lots in her town.
Some developers are already pursuing suburban and exurban developments of homes similar to those that would be legalized under the ballot question in an effort to build lower-cost homes for rent or sale.
Mikula suggested EOHLC and municipalities would handle size regulations. The campaign wrote the measure to ensure it did not violate the constitution by conflating two questions around lot and home size, he said.
“I’d like to point out that this is sort of why ballot initiatives are so hard for the Legislature,” Friedman said. “When you put out what your intent is, which personally makes a lot of sense, I can see all sorts of ways to get around this — and so that’s the problem.”
Lawmakers are not allowed to modify the ballot question language.
Sen. Ryan Fattman asked ballot question supporters if they’re open to a “grand bargain of some sort.” The 2018 grand bargain in response to ballot questions resulted in a minimum wage increase.
Fattman said proponents are focused on land acquisition and scarcity issues, but the Sutton Republican pointed to broader economic issues hampering housing production.
“Most developers will say that they can’t build a single-family home and make a profit, which is highly important, for less than $500,000,” Fattman said. “There’s a lot of people who build homes, at least in central Mass. and western Mass., who posit that.”
Muni Group: Sewer Capacity a Major Worry
Should the measure become law, new housing tensions would likely surface in Massachusetts.
Financially squeezed cities and towns are struggling to afford covering basic municipal services, and their property tax base is significantly curtailed by Proposition 2 ½, according to MMA reports.
MMA legislative and policy counsel Ali DiMatteo said “many, many municipalities with water and sewer are at or near capacity.” DiMatteo pointed to North Shore communities that have turned to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority to keep up with demand at a costly price.
“The language in this ballot initiative makes no mention of capacity issues and conveniently avoids the reality of this problem,” DiMatteo said.
Monday’s hearing comes days after the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities finalized regulations for voluntary starter home districts that could qualify for state incentives. The ballot question’s impact “would go much beyond” those optional Chapter 40Y regulations, Mikula told the News Service.
“Overall, the state is doing carrots, and we’re doing kind of a soft preemption,” he said.
The state last February started allowing accessory dwelling units by right, a component of a 2024 housing bond law. The Healey administration expects 8,000 to 10,000 ADUs to be built over the next five years.
The Legislature has until early May to pass the measure, bargain with the petition sponsors on alternatives, or opt to take no action on the raft of ballot questions, which also includes a rent stabilization proposal.
