b'C H A P T E R E I G H TWitten, whose credentials had been questioned by Riley in The Chronicle months before. Selectmen insisted on one ground rule: Witten, as their man, was to have noncontact with FCWIn the winter months of 2002-03, the contest over the Building Coverage Bylaw waited it out before trial in Superior Court. For its part, FCW formally endorsed the Towns position on enforcing the coverage restriction of that Bylaw change. In the meantime, a few Friends board members, looking back on tedious efforts to pass growth-managing zoning amendments, understandably lacked full confidence in the process. Further, it was going to take more than a little time for the two sides -FCW and Town government -to clarify misunderstandings and shelve chronic resentments. As a gratifying sequel, however, the court did uphold the Building Coverage Bylaw revision. This decision, notes FCWs Walter Butler, has done much to rebuild confidence that our efforts to strengthen the Zoning Bylaw have been effective and worthwhile. To me, that court decision is a milestone.Time For a ReviewFor FCW, after-action debriefing led directors to do some hard thinking about their overall achievement. Of the original revisions generated by their consultant, nine shrunk to seven; over months, they spun through a Kafka-esque grinder, and four survived. Those four won definitive voter approval at Town Meeting in May 2001; of them, two stand as Chatham regulations, a third was considered unenforceable, and the fourth had been challenged in court. Meanwhile, in the spring of 2003, a new interest arose in possibly using the Wetlands Protection Bylaw to achieve the same result as was intended by the Zoning Bylaw change. It had in mind creating a new 50-foot buffer zone around inland ponds.Was it all worth the exercise? First of all, two amendments did become local law.And participants learned from the process; the respective parties fully agreed on that. Further, dont doubt the steel of the Friends centurions in sticking with the mission; rivals would certainly concur on that.On the sober side, consider the time invested: the work began in late 1999 and was still going on three years and some months later. But bear in mind that FCW stalwarts have logged more time on at least one other undertaking, bringing the Stage Harbor Management Plan to fruition. Consider, too, the dollars spent by FCW: $36,376 went to one consultant and two lawyers, as well as for related expenses. Was that figure out-and-out excessive?If FCW had had to pay its own three directors toiling on the project for three years as consultants,144'