Plaistow planning board discusses replacing conflicted legal counsel, delays formal vote

The Plaistow Planning Board spent the bulk of its Sept. 3 meeting debating how to replace planning board legal counsel after the board—s longtime attorney became conflicted out of representing the board. The discussion centered on whether to issue a request for proposals, select counsel directly, or temporarily suspend the board—s conflict rules to allow immediate representation. Board members agreed to interview several candidates and return with recommendations at the next meeting rather than take an immediate vote. Board members said the board—s previous counsel cannot accept new planning-board work because of conflicts; staff circulated two referrals and one additional candidate. The board has at least one interview scheduled for Sept. 9 with attorneys identified in meeting materials as Laura Spector and another candidate from a small firm. Attorney Johnston was reported to be winding down his practice and not taking new clients. The firm BCM Environmental Land and Law and an attorney identified as Manzeli were also discussed as potential options and had provided a sample engagement letter and fee sheet. Several members argued for an open RFP process to ensure multiple proposals; other members said the board can move more quickly by selecting counsel from the referrals and negotiating a contract directly. One member recommended suspending the planning board—s deconfliction language temporarily (for example, 30–90 days) so the board would not be left without counsel if an application requiring legal review were filed before a new attorney was engaged. That suspension was discussed but no motion to suspend rules was made. The board did not adopt a formal motion on counsel selection during the meeting. The chair and staff were directed to continue interviews and circulate candidate materials to board members; the board expressed a goal of having a new contract executed before the next regular meeting on Sept. 17 if possible. The board noted that if an application requiring legal review arrives in the interim, the board could suspend the rules at that time. Next steps: staff will forward candidate materials to members, interviews will continue (Sept. 9 was cited as a scheduled interview date), and the board will revisit the issue at its Sept. 17 meeting. No formal contract award or suspension of rules occurred during the Sept. 3 meeting.