Dartmouth and Acushnet voted about 2 to 1 against Question 7, with every precinct saying no

DARTMOUTH Dartmouth and Acushnet voters turned down Question 7 by roughly 2 to 1, and not one precinct in either town voted for the measure that would have let single-family homes go up on 5,000 square foot lots across the state.

In Dartmouth, 9,142 voters said no and 4,645 said yes, according to the unofficial returns the town clerk's office posted the night of the Nov. 3 election. That is 66% against among voters who marked the question, while 569 ballots left it blank. Acushnet's preliminary returns, which the town clerk's office posted Nov. 5 and labeled as not certified, show 2,958 no votes and 1,578 yes votes, or 65% against, with 165 blanks.

The local margins were far wider than the statewide result. In the partial, unofficial Associated Press count published by WBUR as of 4:39 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 4, Question 7 was trailing 1,238,237 to 1,209,381 across Massachusetts. The Associated Press did not call the question until Friday afternoon, three days after the election, and it lost about 50.6% to 49.4% with 97% of precincts reporting, according to WBUR, figures The New Bedford Light also reported.

What the question would have done

A yes vote would have written a rule into the state Zoning Act barring local zoning from blocking a single-family home on a lot of at least 5,000 square feet with at least 50 feet of frontage and access to public water and public sewer, in any district that allows homes. The state voter booklet put the no side in one line: a no vote "would make no change to the law relative to building single-family homes." Our Question 7 explainer has the attorney general's summary and both campaigns' arguments in full.

Because the measure covered only lots with both public water and public sewer, it would not have reached land served by private wells or septic systems. Its defeat leaves each town's existing minimum lot sizes in place.

Precinct by precinct

Question 7 by precinct: unofficial Dartmouth returns and preliminary Acushnet returns as each town clerk posted them

Precinct	Yes	No	Blank
Dartmouth 1	500	1,284	77
Dartmouth 2	428	811	60
Dartmouth 3	97	117	8
Dartmouth 4	552	1,010	57
Dartmouth 5	553	1,103	53
Dartmouth 6	574	835	70
Dartmouth 7	578	1,106	74
Dartmouth 8	755	1,292	88
Dartmouth 9	608	1,584	82
Dartmouth total	4,645	9,142	569
Acushnet I	504	892	46
Acushnet 2A	48	115	0
Acushnet II	483	902	56
Acushnet III	543	1,049	63
Acushnet total	1,578	2,958	165

Dartmouth's closest count came in Precinct 3, the town's smallest, where the measure lost 117 to 97. Its widest came in Precinct 9, where no outpolled yes 1,584 to 608. In Acushnet, the share voting no ran from 64% in Precinct I to 71% in the small Precinct 2A count.

How neighbors voted

The pattern held in other suburban towns around New Bedford. Fairhaven voted 4,039 to 3,173 against the question and Westport 5,561 to 2,583 against, while New Bedford voted 12,481 to 11,018 in favor, according to the unofficial town and city returns in South Coast 360's election results. That is 56% no in Fairhaven, 68% no in Westport and 53% yes in New Bedford, the same shares The New Bedford Light reported Tuesday.

Dartmouth Select Board Chair Heidi Silva Brooks told The Light she was concerned the measure would have strained local infrastructure. "It was a one-size-fits-all," she said. Fairhaven Select Board Chair Andrew Romano took the other view, telling The Light it was unfortunate the question failed and that "it actually helped shift power back to the municipalities."

What happens next

The town returns become official once the state certifies the Nov. 3 election. Rep. Mark Sylvia, D-Fairhaven, who voted against the question, told The Light he may file legislation for a state incentive program that would encourage towns to allow 5,000 square foot lots on their own. Any change to lot sizes in Dartmouth or Acushnet would otherwise need a zoning bylaw change approved by town meeting.

South Coast 360 asked Dartmouth and Acushnet town officials what the result means for their own housing and zoning plans, with answers requested by noon Thursday, Nov. 12. This story will add their responses.

Label: Reported by us, from the town's posted records.