Residents who live near St. Luke’s told the New Canaan Charter Revision Commission on Dec. 2 that a planned 200‑car parking garage would be inappropriate for a residential neighborhood and would saddle taxpayers with traffic, safety and road‑repair costs.

Lynn Vaughn, who said she lives at 374 North Wilton Road, described daily traffic backups caused by school drop‑off and pickup and called the garage “an accident waiting to happen.” Vaughn said the proposal is being considered by appointed boards rather than elected officials and urged voters to be given the power to choose planning and zoning and wetlands officials.

Sarah Pierce, who said she is part of a neighbors’ group challenging St. Luke’s in court, described the structure as “an 80,000‑square‑foot, 1.3‑acre concrete building” and said, “We go to court on February 4.” Pierce told commissioners she believes parking structures are not allowed in residential zones and warned that heavy construction equipment will likely damage North Wilton Road and that taxpayers will end up paying for repairs.

Bethany Eullein, an abutter at 651 Laurel, said neighbors were not properly notified and that many abutters asserting harm had not received certified mail or in‑person contact. She asked what municipal benefit the structure would bring to New Canaan and questioned allowing a tax‑exempt institution to expand in a residential area without resolving traffic and infrastructure impacts.

Speakers repeatedly connected the dispute to larger governance questions. Several residents argued that planning, zoning and wetlands commissions should be elected to increase accountability to taxpayers, rather than remain appointed bodies. The point was raised in public comment as one of several themes residents asked the Charter Revision Commission to consider while reviewing the town charter.

The dispute over St. Luke’s is already in litigation: one commenter said the group would appear in court on Feb. 4. The Charter Revision Commission did not take a position on the underlying zoning dispute; commissioners collected public input as part of the record and signaled they will consider broader charter changes on how boards are constituted and held accountable.

The public‑comment portion of the hearing closed after residents finished speaking. The commission will continue its special meeting agenda, including scheduled interviews and a review of charter articles, at subsequent sessions.