I'm a bit grumbly but it's frustrating to see planning boards make decisions about what fits local architectural character, as though we decided to stop changing what we liked when we started introducing planning requirements.
I'm a big fan of prefab sustainable homes, the wooden flat-roofed bungalow ones that you can plop down from a factory in about two days. But those homes never meet the requirement list.
The homes around here are mostly, to be honest, pretty ugly concrete block pebble-dashed bungalows. I don't mind that because hey, to each their own, but saying that a home which looks like a log cabin doesn't match the local aesthetic so we should keep all houses in this style is frustrating.
I do wonder if planners have a kneejerk reaction to anything cheap since a huge amount of public policy is specifically designed to keep housing expensive (or "preserve home values" if you're so inclined) The bias towards slow, inefficient, on-site building is hard to understand.
Newer projects have more appeal, where a larger group of families work together to form a connected architectural plan, often themed with energy neutral constraints. Perhaps that could be an option for you as well?
Finally, if you buy a large plot of land (villa style) you can do almost anything you like, especially because you are probably influential and able to convince the local government of your plans.