b'C H A P T E R E I G H TWhat this situation amounted to was that the Bylaw revision passed by Town Meeting in May 2001 was, in Geigers words, not being enforced by the Town zoning officer. After an irritating delay, Mrs. Ecker finally got from the Planning Department a copy of the Attorney Generals September 2001 letter. With that in hand, she reached the A.G. in Springfield.His explanation, she recalls: I approved the substance of that Bylaw. The Town needs to send in maps.This opened up a new, tricky issue. The FCW operatives gathered that by Town estimate, it would cost $100,000 to $250,000 to prepare the maps. Mrs. Ecker reminded Town Manager Hinchey that Town Meeting had approved the article, so what was Town government going to do about those maps? To Bill Hinchey, that was something to be solved by the appropriate appointed board (like Planning), not his office.All the previous back-and-forth meetings and phone conversations boiled down to a sharp disappointment for FCW directors. In Mrs. Eckers view, the stand-off reflected a turning point in FCW-Town relations. No longer did the Town Manager seem willing to mediate between his departments and FCW Rather, he now had a negative attitude (Mrs. Eckers words) toward the Friends and the team of Debby Ecker, John Geiger and their newly added, astute colleague, John Sweeney, an FCW director since 2000. On the matter at issue, the Conservancy District Buffer rule, if Town staff felt it could not be enforced, then an alternative would have to be explored. Determined to see some kind of regulated buffer zones defined by Bylaw revision, FCW encouraged the Town to search for a remedy, as Geiger put it, sooner rather than later -and even offered to help.In the fall of 2002, a second of the revisions approved by voters in May 2001 looked to be in trouble, also. This amendment redefined the Building Coverage Bylaw. It was being challenged by a property owner under the states grandfathering law.7The Towns zoning officer and then the Zoning Board of Appeals had denied a permit to put up a building larger than the coverage allowed by the Bylaw passed in 2001. Thereupon, the owner contested the decision, asserting that grandfathering provisions protected his building plan.The only recourse: go to court, to argue the question of whether the new Bylaw would apply or not. Representing the claimant: lawyer Bill Riley.The plot soon thickened. Technically, FCW did not qualify as a party to the case; it was not an abutter. So it was up to Town Government to defend the 2001 Bylaw article. And, because Town Counsel Bruce Gilmore had previously gone on record against it, the Town would have to hire special counsel to defend its actions in this case. Curiously enough, selectmen decided to employ Jon143'