Here's how the town describes the purpose of R-4 zoning: The R-4 Low Density Residential District is provided in recognition of sections of the Town with low density residential development and land which appears appropriate for such development. Among these sections is land where the established use, character or density of development would be best protected by these regulations. The low density residential district is intended to define and protect residential areas of low density from the intrusion of uses not performing a function appropriate to the residential environment. Attractiveness, order and efficiency is encouraged by the requirement of adequate space for individual homes with adequate light, air and space, and maintaining an appropriate density of residential development. This district is intended to add to the physical variety of the overall residential area while promoting balance and stability.

And here's the Strong Town's take:

Protection vs. Adaptability
The language of "protecting" certain areas from "intrusion" suggests a static, preservationist mindset rather than one that allows neighborhoods to evolve in response to economic and social needs. Strong Towns advocates for incremental, adaptable growth, rather than rigid zoning that locks neighborhoods into a single, outdated model of development.
Exclusionary Zoning and Housing Affordability
By emphasizing "low density" and ensuring "adequate space for individual homes," this policy reinforces large-lot, single-family zoning, which is often a major driver of housing unaffordability. It limits housing options and restricts the ability to add more affordable, diverse housing types (duplexes, ADUs, small multi-family homes), which are crucial for a strong, financially resilient town.
Financial Productivity of Land
Low-density zoning typically results in financially unproductive development. It generates less tax revenue per acre while requiring costly infrastructure (roads, utilities, emergency services) that is disproportionate to the tax base it supports. A financially resilient town should allow for incremental intensification, so that infrastructure costs can be balanced by productive land use.
Artificial Constraints on the Market
The emphasis on "order and efficiency" through strict spatial requirements (light, air, space) often codifies suburban design preferences rather than letting the market respond to actual demand. When zoning regulations force artificially low densities, they prevent natural affordability and constrain housing supply.
Missed Opportunity for Mixed-Use and Incremental Growth
A Strong Towns approach would prioritize incremental, small-scale development and allow neighborhoods to evolve gradually with a mix of housing types. The idea that certain areas must be "protected" from non-residential uses overlooks the benefits of integrating local businesses, neighborhood services, and small-scale mixed-use development, which improve walkability and local economic resilience.

Conclusion
This zoning philosophy prioritizes preservation over adaptability and excludes incremental growth that could enhance economic stability, affordability, and livability. A more Strong Towns-aligned approach would:

Allow more housing options within existing neighborhoods.
Encourage incremental, bottom-up development rather than strict top-down control.
Ensure land use regulations support fiscal resilience rather than burdening the town with unproductive sprawl.