A big open question when you talk about building an intentional community in an already populated area, is how involved do you want to be in your local government?
If you have no involvement at all, then you risk regulatory attack. Deep involvement allows you to most likely take control - but that introduces a different problem because now you are likely to draw the hatred of the outside community - who may eventually manage to wrestle control away from you, and will end up banning you entirely.
Libertarians in New Hampshire and Jews in the US are a bit in this tiger-by-the-tail scenario where they actually have pretty much seized control, but the rest of the population is irate enough that if they ever lose it they're probably going to be expelled en masse.
I think the right answer is to aim for control - but also to *extend* the advanced political decision making system to members of the outside community, roughly by going around like Jehovahs' Witnesses and knocking on doors - but with the mission of learning their needs, wants and feelings, to help that person feel understood, and integrate their needs into the master plan. In the ideal case, you gain another voter who is not part of the commune.