b'C H A P T E R E I G H Ttotally frustrated. Why? Because the developers were beginning to get into this. Now she may have had critics in her day, but no one ever said she lacked chutzpah, and in short order, typically, she put in a long-distance call to developer and properties owner David Oppenheim.David, whats going on here? she asked. Were trying to work with the Town. Your long-range interest with your high-end real estate investments is the same as ours: to protect the quality of life in town .We have the same goals. Why arent we getting together? Why are we getting this resistance?Hardly off-balance, Oppenheim had a quick answer: I have some concrete suggestions of what you can do to make it workable for the developers. You have to meet with Jack Farrell.That was no whimsical proposal. Farrell has a reputation for knowing as much about Zoning Bylaw as anyone else in town. Buoyed by Oppenheims advice, Mrs. Ecker then called another builder, James Gable. He echoed David Oppenheim. Meet with Jack Farrell, he urged. And Debby Ecker boarded a northbound plane to do just that.In fact, the FCW team did more: they convened with Farrell, Riley,Gable, and surveyor Terry Eldredge. Mrs. Ecker was delighted at Jack Farrells response: Im really interested in this, he told her. I want to help you. And he meant it. Basically, he supported FCWs amendments. But he felt he could tweak them and make them more acceptable to the developers. Its important to add that by then, only four of FCWs original nine amendments remained on the table. They were these:Conservancy Buffer Zone Overlay District:Provided additional zoning requirements for Inland Conservancy Districts.Criteria for Increases in Nonconformity:Expanded guidelines for the building inspector and Zoning Board of Appeals when reviewing requests for tear-downs or expansions of non-conformingproperties.Maximum Allowable Building Coverage:Preserved neighborhood character, discouraged over-development, saved rapidly dwindling open space.138'