The controversy over extending a road in Gluckstadt was extended another two weeks because a county supervisor was on vacation.

Developers seeking to remove a restrictive condition on commercial property on Church Road will have to wait another two weeks for an answer after supervisors tabled the matter due to the absence of one supervisor Monday. 

Board President Trey Baxter represents District 2 and was not at Monday’s meeting. His fellow supervisors voted to table any action until the next meeting on June 17.

Ron Hutchinson, John Harreld and Annette Harreld are seeking to remove two conditions on 3.71 acres of land that currently requires a cul-de-sac instead of a connector road to Church Road they wish to develop. In addition, the trio are asking to remove a requirement that a three-foot berm be built on the property adjacent to Church Road. 

The Madison County Planning & Zoning Commission voted 3-1 in May to recommend approval to the board of supervisors. 

Hutchinson filed an appeal against the Gluckstadt incorporation effort due to concerns he wouldn’t be able to timely develop this property, his attorneys previously said. 

Walter Morrison, the appointed mayor of Gluckstadt, previously told the Journal that Hutchinson filed the appeal to buy time to get approval for the Church Road connector road at the county level. 

“What he wanted was a commitment from the appointed mayor and the appointed Board of Aldermen to support his efforts to get a road extended up to Church Road from where his property is located there,” Morrison said in April. 

Morrison said since there is no city of Gluckstadt officially, they could not make any such agreements with Hutchinson. Morrison said that’s why Hutchinson filed the appeal to instead petition to county supervisors to allow for the road. 

Tim Slattery of 118 Munich Drive in Germantown Subdivision was present Monday to voice his opposition to the connector road. 

Slattery said an agreement was made with developers and nearby residents in 2015 that included a cul-de-sac instead of a connector road. 

Slattery said they signed an agreement in good faith and they should stick to it. He said approving the connector road would be a safety issue with traffic. 

District 1 Supervisor Sheila Jones said she needed more information before the next meeting. 

She said the traffic study the developers presented to the county was nothing more than a “car count” from 2018. 

She said engineers can put together traffic studies based on proposed businesses and that’s the information she wants to have. 

“How much traffic are you going to put on the road from your development,” she asked. 

John Wade, an attorney with Brunini Law Firm representing the three developers, said they had their engineer available for questions at the meeting. 

“He’s a great engineer,” Jones said. “I like him. We need a traffic study.”

She reiterated that what they had was not a traffic study, it was just a car count and an outdated one at that. 

“Since your study was done we’ve added six businesses,” she said, saying they need up-to-date information. “Our job is to keep traffic moving. We need you to tell us how much traffic we’re going to have.”

Wade said their concern with the cul-de-sac is that lower-end businesses would develop in the area and the backs of the buildings would face Church Road. 

Wade said the connector road itself would not increase traffic as he understood it. 

“The argument can me made a lot of that traffic will be funneled off Church Road,” he said. 

Jones said they would have traffic no matter what if it’s developed. 

“We want development,” she said. “Our roads need to be able to handle the traffic.” 

Supervisors unanimously approved tabling the motion until June 17.