By Ada Sussman, Belmont Voice contributor
It’s been 28 years since Robin Antonellis moved to Belmont to “plant roots.” From a tight-knit family, she already had uncles, aunts, and cousins living in town. To her, moving to Belmont wasn’t just about “creating an excellent community” — it was about creating an oasis just moments away from Boston.
“The historic town charm I fell in love with still lives on,” Antonellis said. “There’s just so many things that have changed.”
Among them, the size of the houses in Belmont.
“There felt like there was a period in the 28 years where if someone bought a home, it was to tear down the existing structure and build something larger,” she said.
Ballot Question 7 hopes to change that by encouraging a surge in starter-home construction. The measure would set a statewide minimum square footage requirement for single-family lots of just 5,000 square feet with 50 feet of frontage, and access to water and sewer infrastructure.
Right now, Belmont zoning allows lot size minimums ranging from 5,000 to 25,000 square feet. Most of the Waverly Square area falls under the General Residence zoning district, which permits single-family homes on 5,000-square-foot lots. Meanwhile, in Belmont Hill, lot sizes would range from a 25,000-square-foot minimum to 5,000—an 80% decrease.
The measure is designed to address the affordability crisis in the Greater Boston area. Since 2000, home prices have increased 73% when adjusted for inflation, establishing the city and its suburbs as one of the most expensive markets in the country.
The typical value of all housing in Massachusetts has increased 198% since 2000. Data was gathered using the Zillow Home Value Index with prices in the middle market seasonally adjusted (Graphic by Quinn McPherson).
Question 7 Proponents Predict Housing Construction Increase
Legalize Starter Homes launched Question 7 and says the measure could create between 2,220 and 5,700 new homes statewide each year.
Andrew Mikula, the group’s chair, says the initiative could also solve the problem of “mansionization” in Belmont.
“This would provide an alternative where instead of building one giant McMansion, you could build several smaller homes that certainly sell for less than what that McMansion would sell for,” Mikula said. “That’s probably the most immediate effect Belmont might see from this.”
But the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University predicts the number of new homes would be dramatically lower. The study says high construction overhead and reluctance from both homeowners and municipalities would lead to only 1,200 new homes a year statewide.
Adam Chapdelaine, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association and a primary opponent of Question 7, said the measure ignores the costs of building new homes.
“We feel pretty strongly that we have to find ways to reduce the cost of producing housing if we really want to be able to provide housing that’s going to be accessible to different types of people in the state,” he said.
He said the state needs to adopt regulations limiting the size of homes in order to provide more affordable housing.
“There would have to be very explicit provisions about the size of home that could be built, so that we could actually be talking about creating a starter home,” he said.
Belmont Planning Division Doubts Impact of Question 7
Conor McCormack, Belmont’s planning division manager, said Question 7 wouldn’t have a big impact on Belmont.
“They may add a somewhat marginal amount of new homes in Belmont,” McCormack said, “but I think given the built environment that we have here and the level of density that already exists, to meaningfully increase additional housing units in town, we’d probably be looking at more multifamily [homes].”
Christopher Ryan, director of planning and building, said he expects no more than 30 new constructions over the next decade, primarily due to homeowner reluctance.
“I think that they want to know what the potential impact is on traffic or infrastructure,” Ryan said. “There would definitely be a range of citizens who have different concerns.”
Given community worries about other recent rezoning efforts, such as the MBTA Community Act, which mandated new zoning to accommodate multifamily housing in areas served by the transit system, both Ryan and McCormack anticipated potential pushback.
“I think a concern some folks would have would be related to loss of local control,” McCormack said. “This is a state ballot initiative informing local zoning or overriding local zoning. There could be some tension there.”
Question 7: Part of the Puzzle
Proponents of Question 7 say it is a small part of the larger puzzle to address the affordability crisis in Massachusetts.
Jesse Kanson-Benanav, executive director of Abundant Housing Massachusetts, a non-profit in favor of Question 7, called the initiative a single “tool in the toolkit” in increasing housing accessibility.
“It’s really focused on building these homes where infrastructure exists, rather than sprawling development, and so I think this… has some unique benefits that other strategies we’ve adopted as a state don’t yet have,” Kanson-Benanav said. “Every strategy will be really important to address what has become an existential crisis for our state and really is putting our future economic vibrancy at risk.”
