Andrew Mikula is chair of the Legalize Starter Homes ballot committee.

I came across Baxter Village after a Google Maps perusal of one of the country’s fastest-growing regions. Completed in 2014 and billed as a “traditional neighborhood development” with a walkable town center and intimate, tree-lined residential streets, the village is downright idyllic. The architecture is clearly inspired by early 20th-century New England — a Norman Rockwell-style vista of homes with raised front porches, wood clapboard siding, steep roofs, and dormer windows.

But Baxter Village isn’t located in New England. It’s in South Carolina, about 15 miles south of Charlotte.

The reality is that 15 miles outside of Boston, Worcester, or Lowell, Baxter Village would almost certainly be illegal, for a variety of reasons. First, the development’s home lots are small, often only slightly larger than a basketball court. Local zoning codes in suburban Massachusetts frequently preclude such small lots, and New England in particular has high minimum lot-size requirements for new homes, compared to most of the country.

Given that Massachusetts has the nation’s toughest home buying market for young adults, many voters are open to reducing these lot-size minimums. A May 2025 Abundant Housing Massachusetts/MassINC poll found that 78 percent of Massachusetts voters support “allowing homes to be built on smaller lots,” and 72 percent support allowing the subdivision of large lots into smaller lots. Doing so would open up more housing options in the suburbs, creating opportunities to build smaller, lower-cost homes suitable for first-time buyers and downsizing seniors, colloquially called “starter homes.”

That’s why 12 housing experts — urban planners, academics, land use attorneys, and advocates — and I recently filed a petition with the Massachusetts attorney general’s office that would make it legal to build on lots about the size of a basketball court (5,000 square feet) statewide. As long as the lot has access to public sewer and water service, as well as a 50-foot border with the street, the site could host a single-family home, although it may be subject to other regulations like wetlands protections and limits on short-term rentals.

Our committee — Legalize Starter Homes — cleared the first signature-gathering hurdle needed to place this measure on the ballot this year, and Secretary of State William Galvin’s recent certification has advanced this potential ballot question to the next step in the process.

Research has shown that Massachusetts’ large minimum lot-size requirements increase home prices and reduce new production. One Harvard study found that in Greater Boston, a quarter-acre increase in the minimum lot-size requirement was associated with 10 percent fewer homes permitted between 1980 and 2002. Separately, a 2011 study found that Eastern Massachusetts minimum lot-size requirements can increase home prices by as much as 20 percent or more and that these price effects tend to increase over time.

Other states have acted on such facts amid a nationwide housing crunch. In June, Maine capped minimum lot sizes in “designated growth areas” statewide at 5,000 square feet when served by public sewer and water systems. This is remarkable given that Maine has both a less severe housing shortage than Massachusetts and a much larger volume of undeveloped, inexpensive land.

The Massachusetts Legislature has tried to enhance the production of starter homes before, offering incentive payments under Chapter 40Y to municipalities to adopt new zoning districts that allow for them. But more than three years after Chapter 40Y was enacted, the state has yet to finalize regulations that would allow for these zoning districts to be created. Meanwhile, builders struggle to justify much new construction given high interest rates, tariffs on building materials, and labor shortages in the trades.

Our ballot petition creates a framework for allowing starter homes that is more easily implemented and doesn’t require municipalities to adopt new zoning. And unlike the MBTA Communities Act, it would solely allow for the creation of single-family homes, most of which would probably be owner-occupied.

Recent public polling data, research findings, precedents in other states, and the urgent and extreme nature of Massachusetts’ housing shortage all suggest that now is the right time to limit minimum lot sizes in places with sufficient infrastructure for new housing. The result could be a far-reaching expansion of opportunity for a new generation of homeowners in Massachusetts.