Vermonters are VERY resistant to people trying to change their landscape or way of life, and as you might expect, they (myself included) are not thrilled with this plan.
Within the constraints of zoning, which are very strict both at the state level (Act 250 would certainly come into play for a development this large) and often at the town level also (don't know about Sharon). Vermont's zoning is partially oriented towards keeping as much green space and working farmland available as possible... maybe there are places where you can just buy up hundreds of acres farmland and turn it into strip malls and high density housing but Vermont is thankfully not one of them.
As another example of what you cannot do with your land in Vermont - you cannot put up a billboard on it. There was a case recently where a mural painted on a barn wall within sight of the highway was declared a roadside ad and had to be removed. You don't realize how just ugly and tacky billboards are until you live in a place without them for a few years...
I recently visited San Francisco and was appalled by the billboards. There's something very jarring about seeing internet memes on a billboard.[1]
[1] http://i0.wp.com/digiday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bill...
I would guess not.
http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/permit-handbook/sheet...
I imagine most resistance to this scheme is based in pragmatism. What's being discussed is essentially a paternalistic, religious company town. There is no way that a development of this size will be in any way self-sustaining; it will have significant impacts on the local infrastructure, culture and environment.
Such a meta typo. So often, when people want things the same way they've always been[1], that means they want people to think the same way they always have[1], which they don't (because the new generation never does).
1: "always" generally being a short 10-20 year period the person vaguely remembers from their youth, but fondly, because they didn't have much responsibility as they were young and didn't actually have to pay much attention to anything outside their limited social circle.
Vermont was the first state to adopt same sex marriage by statute without a court-issued mandate, so I think "resistant to change" and "like things just the way they have always been" seems likely to be an overly simplistic view of their culture.
Politically, Vermont went from being staunchly Republican to being staunchly Democratic. They're also much more open to changing norms, like embracing gay rights.
The leadership of the Church will not acknowledge or encourage the project in any official capacity, and will definitely not 'dispatch' members to live there.
The only exception being if there are actually 20k people, there may be a single pair of missionaries assigned to visit every now and then.
That's the story, but in the same breath he says:
'A plat, says Hall, will be subject to state and regional laws, but will also be overseen by a board and heirachries of leaders with, it appears, strong Mormon Family values.'
That's not exactly nothing.
It's interesting, Mormonism originally encouraged its members to move to a central place, but around 1950 then prophet (i.e. leader) David O. McKay told people it was fine to remain at home [1]. There are some interesting pockets out there as a result of this "gathering attitude", though, like (AFAIK) a fairly substantial group of Polynesian Mormons in and around Independence, Missouri (a key area in Mormon theology)[2].
[1] https://www.lds.org/manual/presidents-of-the-church-student-...
(search the term "where they live" in the article)
[2] https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/06/saints-in-independence?la...
Joseph's Smith's communal utopia, finally realized? Oh yeah, there are people who will go for this.
Edit: As for farming, yes mormons will be fine with it. Google "mormon food storage" and you'll be amazed. They are taught to be ready for disasters at all times.