The recent form-based zoning article vote at Amherst's fall Town Meeting was 119-79. In favor. It fell 13 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed.

Recent opinion pieces written by John O. Fox, Hilda Greenbaum and Mary Wentworth, all opponents, might lead you to believe that there was an outright smack-down of these "sweeping zoning changes." Had I not paid attention to Town Meeting, I might be inclined to think that 119 people voted against Article 17, so vociferous and convincing are the latest pieces.

Here's the recent history of zoning articles in Amherst. The citizen-run Planning Board and the town planning department work for a period of time, with public hearings, to craft what they hope are carefully worded and considered articles for Town Meeting. That work is to reflect the interests and intentions of the town's Comprehensive Planning Document, better known as the master plan.

At the last few Town Meetings, zoning articles have been thwarted by a narrow margin to which the immediate response is either: a. don't bring it back; or b. change it until it looks nothing like the original article and reflects only the loudest voices. I hope that the town doesn't make either of those mistakes this time around.

Article 17, on form-based zoning, and Article 8, promoting in-fill development in village centers from last fall, which John Fox cites in his most recent Bulletin piece, weren't blown out of the water. Article 8 lost by fewer than 10 votes, but had a 60 percent majority. Article 17 lost by 13 votes. Sure, for opponents this is a victory based on the parliamentary rules of Town Meeting. But let's not make it seem like a majority of representatives at Town Meeting # and people in town # aren't in favor of form-based zoning or good development.

Thousands of residents weighed in on the master plan's contents. Within it there are such voguish and seemingly good-for-the-community concepts like smart growth, sustainability and a big old wireless cloud so everyone in town can have access. Its detractors seem to think that any attempt to actually implement the plan is an attempt to hijack the stated intentions of the community with unchecked growth.

Of course, that ignores the fact that it is not easy to get anything built, and that we have committees that applicants often spend thousands of dollars to go through. Our current zoning is already unnecessarily difficult to understand by everyone except the five or so people who are at every Planning Board meeting. For those complaining that form-based zoning is really difficult to understand, well, it's actually easier. And maybe that's the problem for some of its opponents.

In John Fox's most recent piece, he warns ominously that he was told to look for "the cracks in form-based zoning." Because, as he and others note, the discretion to "waive, modify, or vary the (form-based zoning) standards would be broad power vested in a handful of people."

What? Those "cracks" would seemingly be no different than the special permit process that one has to go through right now. But Fox suggests, again, that we nefarious master plan and form-based zoning advocates have another trick up our sleeves to fool the unwitting and build whatever we want. That is silly.

The master plan's intent is to protect our open space and quality of life and to develop sustainable village centers. We've done the first two items. For the future health of Amherst we've got to grow the village centers. The town should intelligently plan and look to the future. Or it can remain in stasis, and watch, as a result, the degradation of our infrastructure, schools and services. The final choice is to continue to raise residential taxes to an unsustainable level to support services.

Come springtime, I hope it becomes a pretty easy choice.

Tony Maroulis is the executive director of the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce.