Path forward after Article 7
Article 7 lost by 24 votes out of 1,610 ballots submitted. Article 2 — the Planning Board’s refinements to the House-Scale Residential Dwelling Overlay — passed easily. Read together, the results are not a victory for either side. They are a mandate for compromise.
The campaign was unusually and unnecessarily contentious. Many voters who opposed Article 7 share the concerns of those who supported it: triplexes and fourplexes in established single-family neighborhoods raise real questions about scale and character. And many voters who supported Article 7 acknowledge that Hanover has a housing crisis. The space between those positions is where most of the town actually lives.
Many voters never knew that Article 7 went well beyond triplexes and fourplexes. It would also have eliminated the overlay’s pathways for new single-family homes and duplexes — the most modest, family-scale housing the overlay enabled. The original “Yes In My Backyard” framing of the petition obscured that, and galvanized many residents who care about housing supply to vote no. The “Protect Our Neighborhoods” yard signs were more accurate about intent.
The best way to protect our neighborhoods is to grow our community. Declining enrollment at the Ray School should concern everyone: it signals that families with children are being priced out, and a town without children at its center is a town at risk.
There is a good path forward. The Planning Board — whose judgment voters just endorsed in Article 2 — should bring a sponsored article to next Town Meeting that tightens and restricts triplexes and fourplexes while preserving the overlay’s single-family and duplex pathways. That would address the legitimate concerns of half the town and the housing concerns of the other half. It would also spare Hanover the next round of dueling lawn signs.