Thanks for picking this one up, good to know that reality interceeded.
... temporarily.
I haven't seen the details of the proposed development so I guess that puts me in the enviable but common position of being an expert on it.
I'll never understand the need for McMansions as a primary home, let alone a second home, but I'm sure there are those who could credibly wonder about my needs as well so removing class or lifestyle envy/pity from the equation may actually reduce the issue to one of wise land use.
900 dwelling units sounds like a lot of housing, especially in an area where we don't expect that sort of thing. Fact is, sooner or later 900 dwelling units will spring up somewhere nearby ... maybe take a generation or two to happen but it will. How it happens is key. Will it be concentrated rather than sprawled all over the remaining land available? A good plan will concentrate it in manner that is least obtrusive and environmentally degrading. Sprawl is generally considered a poor plan.
What I like from an environmental standpoint is that this area was historically served by rail and I expect that within our lifetimes will once again see such service. So, I tend to favor planned and concentrated development accessible to public mass transportation over sprawl accessed only by highways.
Short of a white knight who rides up, invests megamillions and then gives it away in the form of conservation easements or land grants to government agencies or non-government conservation organizations, let's deal with reality (and private land rights) and look for the wisest long term use of the land.