Massachusetts voters approved Question 7 on Tuesday, Nov. 3, a measure that will allow single-family homes on lots as small as 5,000 square feet statewide, overriding local zoning minimums that both Lexington and Concord have long used to manage residential development.

The measure passed with about 54 percent in favor and 46 percent opposed in early returns, according to Patch, which reported results as of 10:30 p.m. on election night. It was among the closer margins on a ballot that included nine citizen initiatives.

Under the new law, a single-family home could be built on any lot with at least 5,000 square feet, at least 50 feet of land bordering a street and access to public water and sewer, according to Patch's pre-election explainer. Towns would still control building height and other aspects of zoning.

Both Lexington and Concord maintain residential zoning districts with lot-size minimums well above 5,000 square feet. Concord's zoning bylaw, for example, sets minimum tract sizes for planned residential developments ranging from 40,000 square feet in its Residence C district to 320,000 square feet in Residence AA, according to the town's draft general corrections warrant article.

The debate over Question 7 pitted housing advocates against municipal officials. Andrew Mikula of the "Yes on 7" campaign said at a Salem State University forum before the election that while there are "no silver bullets" to fixing the state's housing crisis, the measure would spur development of smaller homes, Patch reported.

Dave Koffman of the Massachusetts Municipal Association spoke against the measure at the same forum. He warned the law could produce "McMansions" that strain local infrastructure without making housing more affordable.

"That's a big concern for us," Koffman said, according to Patch. "Because, for us, cities and towns are the closest to the residents. … It's a one-size-fits-all approach where the state determines what's allowable."

Opponents compared Question 7 to the MBTA Communities Act, which required cities and towns with commuter rail access to expand zoning for multi-family housing or risk losing state funding. Several municipalities fought that law unsuccessfully before the Supreme Judicial Court upheld it, Patch reported.

Lexington's Select Board has already been navigating zoning tensions. At its Oct. 5 meeting, the board voted 4-1 to remove a zoning amendment on Special Residential Developments from the warrant for Special Town Meeting 2026-1, according to meeting minutes. Board member Jill Hai said the existing zoning "is the subject of a lot of data-driven calculations and professional input" and that there had not been enough time to vet changes. Chair Joe Pato said Town Meeting "is a location for that engaged debate after a broad public awareness process." Board member Joe Lucente cast the lone dissenting vote, arguing the Select Board should not use its power to remove a Planning Board article.

That Special Town Meeting is scheduled for Monday, Nov. 9, at 7:30 p.m. in a hybrid format. The board voted 5-0 to approve the hybrid setup at the same Oct. 5 meeting.

Other ballot results as of 10:30 p.m. on election night included voters keeping recreational marijuana sales (about 73 percent against repeal), retaining the current party primary system (about 61.5 percent), and upholding stricter gun control laws adopted in 2024 (about 71 percent in favor of keeping them), according to Patch, citing Associated Press data.