Middle house - 112 Dedham - was built in 1951.
A section of Dedham Street in Canton is lined with modest-sized starter homes built in the early 1950s. Builders say it's become impossible to construct these homes today in Greater Boston. (Photo by Michael Jonas)

FOR SEVERAL DECADES, newly-constructed, affordable “starter homes” have remained the mythical unicorn of the Massachusetts housing market. This is mainly because modestly sized “starter lots” have been wiped out due to increases in lot size minimums, and because of a doctrine called “lot merger” that was created by Massachusetts courts and utilized heavily throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. 

Without available starter lots on which to build, starter homes have been driven to the edge of extinction and young families have been driven to leave the Commonwealth in search of greener – more affordable – home ownership pastures. This wasn’t always the case, and starter homes can very quickly and easily be revived throughout Massachusetts by ending and reversing lot merger.

Immediately following World War II, starter homes served as a cornerstone of the American Dream – modest homes on modestly-sized neighborhood lots. However, as recently documented by housing researcher Amy Dain for Boston Indicators and The Boston Foundation — and captured in her report’s title — zoning changes implemented during the 1960s and 1970s that increased minimum lot sizes, thus compelling larger homes and higher price point barriers to enter the neighborhood, were often “Exclusionary by Design.”  In addition to advancing an exclusionary agenda, the shift to acre-plus zoning forever eliminated opportunities to continue building starter homes on starter lots.

The doctrine of “lot merger” is a tool in service of exclusionary zoning. Lot merger was created by the Massachusetts courts to forcibly merge adjacent lots held in common ownership that were perfectly fine and individually buildable for zoning purposes when created, but don’t meet subsequently increased lot size mandates. Where two modest homes could have been built on two modest lots, only one home could be built after lot merger.

Taking the place of single-family starter homes, new multifamily rental neighborhoods have become the default housing product statewide for young families and individuals. The proliferation of multifamily developments (during the same decades that witnessed the decline of the starter home) is the product of thoughtful and effective efforts to boost the Commonwealth’s multifamily housing stock through statutory programs, including Chapter 40B, Chapter 40R and the recent MBTA Communities Act. 

Undeniably, more multifamily rental apartments are needed to address the significant housing deficit in Massachusetts. However, financing new large multifamily developments remains extremely challenging in the current economic environment, and a growing number of municipalities are chaffing against state mandates for communities to produce more multifamily housing. 

When it comes to family economics, rental apartments meet immediate housing needs but often represent a financial “hamster wheel” lacking the opportunity to build the same savings, home equity, and financial security that prior generations of homeowners enjoyed and passed on to children and grandchildren. Historically, renters have aspired to leap from the wheel of increasing rents and grab hold of the lowest rung of an “ownership ladder” that they can climb and build financial security over time. However, across the country – and particularly in Massachusetts – that lowest rung is only getting further out of reach, and the dream of owning even a starter home has become an unrealistic fantasy for many.

Home ownership is a seed, and home equity the fruit, from which generational wealth is born. Therefore, starter homes must not be left out of the Massachusetts housing policy playbook.

You have likely seen the telltale signs of lot merger. They are those homes with uncharacteristically large side yards – typically described in real estate listings as “double lots” – scattered throughout older neighborhoods in every city and town. While lot merger is not a doctrine exclusive to Massachusetts, other states that historically imposed the practice have reversed course – recognizing that smaller lots with correspondingly lower land costs are a key ingredient to bringing back affordable starter homes. In fact, Rhode Island recently passed legislation that eliminated the doctrine of lot merger and “unwound” previously merged lots.

Bringing back starter lots for starter homes in Massachusetts would be quite simple, and there is already language in state statutes that protects lots held in separate ownership against zoning amendments that increase lot size. The language simply fails to cover situations where adjacent lots were owned by the same party at the time local lot size increases were imposed (imagine two neighboring lots purchased by a family with the intention to build a home on one and hold the other for a child or relative to build on), so the courts reasoned that no such protection was intended. In the absence of protection, the result was forced lot merger for zoning purposes to bring the sum of two lots in closer conformity with new increased lot size minimums.    

A simple statutory amendment that would (1) also protect lots held in common ownership against zoning changes to increase lot sizes; (2) unwind merged lots that were each at least 10,000 square feet in size but forcibly combined under the lot merger doctrine; and (3) limit new construction on unwound lots to starter homes (already defined under state law as no larger than 1,850 square feet of living area), could immediately allow many thousand attainable starter homes to once again be built across the Commonwealth. Such language allowing starter homes to be built on unmerged and protected starter lots can and should be included in the Affordable Homes Act that is currently making its way through the Legislature.

Adding handfuls of modest homes to existing neighborhoods, disbursed throughout the Commonwealth, carries none of the flashpoints sometimes sparked by large-scale multifamily developments built under Chapter 40B or contemplated by the MBTA Communities Act. Yet, such a move would collectively represent a massive boost for “missing middle” homes by putting the home ownership ladder back within reach for those who have historically been denied the opportunities, financial security, and generational legacy of home ownership. All without altering the character of neighborhoods or communities.

Rob Brennan is a land use attorney with Smolak & Vaughan LLP and chair of the Government Affairs Committee for the Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Massachusetts.