So if its nowhere, what's the resistance about? Vermonters want to do whatever the hell they want on their own land. But not this guy? He's got to do what Vermonters want? I never figured out what that's all about.
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.
Politically, Vermont went from being staunchly Republican to being staunchly Democratic. They're also much more open to changing norms, like embracing gay rights.
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.