Board continues Trask Lane hearing, asks peer review of traffic and pedestrian impacts

The Beverly Planning Board continued its public hearing on the 440-unit Corcoran Trask Lane development and asked for further peer review of traffic and pedestrian impacts before moving toward a final decision. The applicant presented revised site plans and an August 7 traffic memorandum that compares operation of the intersections with and without an access easement through Apple Village.

Why it matters: Trask Lane is the largest development before the board and has drawn sustained public comment about traffic, pedestrian safety, construction impacts and open-space commitments. The board asked for an explicit peer review of the alternate access design and its pedestrian safety implications before the next hearing.

What happened at the meeting: Attorney Miranda Samasco (representing Corcoran Trask Lane LLC) summarized the project’s procedural history, noted the August supplemental traffic memo prepared by GPI, and explained that applicant-contemplated mitigation and an alternate access plan were included in the packet. Rebecca Brown of GPI, the applicant’s traffic consultant, had prepared an August 7 memo answering board questions but was not available to speak remotely that night.

The board and public focused on two interrelated items: the applicant’s proposed new access easement from Manor Road through Apple Village and the traffic and pedestrian impacts at the multi-legged intersection where Trask Lane, Manor Road, Duck Pond Drive and Route 127 converge. Samasco said the traffic simulations show similar Level-of-Service (LOS) outcomes for the intersections whether or not the Apple Village easement is obtained, but acknowledged the easement remains subject to Apple Village approval and lender review.

Requested peer review and next steps: Several board members and members of the public asked explicitly for the city’s peer reviewer to examine the applicant’s comparative analysis, and to give particular attention to pedestrian and bicycle safety. The board asked staff to arrange that peer review and, if helpful, to have the reviewer available at the Sept. 16 meeting. Planning staff and the applicant agreed to post written responses and asked the public to submit focused questions at least 10 days before the next hearing so consultant responses can be prepared in writing.

Other commitments and details: The applicant reported the design review board issued a recommendation on revised plans and that the conservation restriction and public-trail access included in the supplemental packet remain proposed commitments. The developer also said it will provide three public parking spaces that would serve the public trail access and that a proposed convenience store location could be held available for up to three years while the developer markets it to potential tenants; the applicant emphasized that lease-up is market-dependent and not guaranteed.

Public comments: Residents raised concerns about safety at the intersection (including the presence of a school bus stop in the same area), construction traffic on private roads, potential light spill from parking areas, and the viability of transit/shuttle mitigations. The applicant said a bus shelter and striping/signage plan are included in the revised drawings to support potential future transit service.

Outcome: The board continued the public hearing to Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025, and directed staff to schedule the city peer reviewer to examine the applicant’s alternate-access analysis and pedestrian-safety implications; the board also encouraged the public to provide written questions at least 10 days before the next hearing so consultants can respond in writing.

Ending: The continuation preserves a recorded public record and gives the board time to review peer-review findings on safety and access before further votes on the site plan.