<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=3OfHHn_1GtXB6Mq00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=3OfHHn_1GtXB6Mq00" width="1600" height="1067" ><figcaption>The Vineyard was split on question 7. - Ray Ewing</figcaption></figure>A ballot question that would have made it easier to build homes on traditionally undersized lots split voters on the Vineyard and ultimately failed by the slimmest of margins at last week’s midterm election. Question 7, put forward by Lowell-based organization Legalize Starter Homes, would have allowed single-family homes to be built in residentially zoned areas as long as the land was at least 5,000 square feet, had 50 feet of land bordering a road, and had access to public sewer and water. While some Vineyarders and Island officials believed the measure could help ease the Island’s housing crisis, others worried that it could have created more second homes and would smash decades of permitting precedent.The Associated Press called the contest on Friday, with more than 95 per cent of the votes tallied. About 1.28 million people voted against the question and 1.2 million voted in favor. Question 7 was the lone ballot initiative where the six Island towns weren’t in agreement. Aquinnah, Tisbury, and Oak Bluffs voted in favor; Chilmark, West Tisbury and Edgartown voted against.According to unofficial tallies from town clerks, overall the Vineyard was in favor by a 4,832 to 4,318 vote.<figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=4d83pe_1GtXB6Mq00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=4d83pe_1GtXB6Mq00" width="1280" height="853" ><figcaption>A voter heads into the Edgartown polls. – Ray Ewing</figcaption></figure>The initiative had drawn support from Gov. Maura Healey, housing advocates and the Vineyard’s state senator Julian Cyr for its ability to help bring more housing options to Massachusetts. In an interview with the Gazette in the lead up to the election, Yes on 7 campaign chair Andrew Mikula said that he saw the question as a way to help middle earners find their way into the housing market. “The goal is to create homes that are smaller, lower cost, lower maintenance,” he said. “This should be the baseline allowance everywhere in Massachusetts that has the infrastructure.”Municipalities would have been able to put restrictions on height, setbacks, parking and whether the properties could be rented out on a short-term basis. Here on the Vineyard, the question would have only affected the down Island towns, as Aquinnah, Chilmark and West Tisbury don’t have municipal water or sewer. Officials in Edgartown, Oak Bluffs and Tisbury didn’t have exact numbers on how many parcels this would have opened up, but it would have been a big change.“There are a slew of small lots, postage stamp lots, in Oak Bluffs, Vineyard Haven and Edgartown,” Oak Bluffs building commissioner Adam Petkus told the Gazette in September. The proposal drew criticism from organizations such as the Massachusetts Municipal Association. The nonprofit, which provides advocacy and training for communities, felt the proposed regulation changes would have taken away from local planning by setting a limit regardless of existing neighborhoods and other conditions. “Local officials are directly responsible to taxpayers, and this would remove significant oversight on behalf of their residents,” association executive director Adam Chapdelaine wrote in a rebuttal to the ballot question. While the law did allow towns to prohibit the new homes from being used as short-term rentals, there were no provisions written in the law that would ensure they would be affordable or limited to year-round use — the two biggest deficiencies in the Vineyard housing market. With Vineyard home sales continuing to climb into a more expensive stratosphere, that was a big worry for some here. Ahead of the election, Edgartown planning board member Julia Livingston worried the proposed change would have encouraged more market-rate single family homes. “The market is for homes that most people on the Island can’t afford,” she said.Island housing officials were working with the region’s legislative leaders on potential amendments that could have tailored the regulation to the Vineyard’s needs.The most robust support for the ballot question came from the Greater Boston Area. Boston, Somerville, Cambridge and many other surrounding municipalities voted in favor.Around the Vineyard, though, there was much less support. Along with Chilmark, West Tisbury and Edgartown, Nantucket, nearly all of the Cape and much of the South Coast voted against question 7. In a letter opposing the question, Ben Robinson, a Tisbury resident and member of the town’s planning board, noted that the towns could themselves decide to implement these looser lot restrictions.For him, one of the major issues in the question was enforcing a single standard across the entire state. “Any town meeting can reduce its minimum lot size tomorrow, and the state even pays towns that adopt starter-home districts,” he wrote. “Island towns have looked at that choice and declined so far, because unrestricted small lots do not produce year-round housing here. Question 7 doesn’t give towns a new tool; it takes away the right to decide, and an edict from Boston is the wrong way to settle a question that turns entirely on local conditions.”</div></body>

Block Source: vineyardgazette.com

Misinformation

Clickbait

Old or repetitive news

Explicit content

Location not relevant

A ballot question that would have made it easier to build homes on traditionally undersized lots split voters on the Vineyard and ultimately failed by the slimmest of margins at last week’s midterm election. Question 7, put forward by Lowell-based organization Legalize Starter Homes, would have allowed single-family homes...

Housing Lot Ballot Question Rejected

NewsBreak

A ballot question that would have made it easier to build homes on traditionally undersized lots split voters on the Vineyard and ultimately failed by the 

Housing Lot Ballot Question Rejected

Comments