The Morgan County Planning Commission continued its review of petition MIP25-18 after several hours of public comment and a failure to reach a formal recommendation on the developer’s plan to reconfigure the Links at Hartland Crossing golf course for new housing.

The petition, presented by engineering consultant Jeff Bany of Bany Engineering, would rework the 200‑acre course area to retain about nine holes, create a new clubhouse site and set aside roughly 40 acres of common open space while converting other portions for single‑family lots. Bany told the commission the project team met neighbors multiple times and had added three neighborhood commitments — a 50‑foot rear‑lot buffer, 100% first‑floor masonry on homes abutting the “sanctuary” and a negotiated fence/landscaping treatment for an adjacent property — that they plan to include in the PUD ordinance.

"We have tried to meet with neighbors and communicate and work with the neighborhood on this process," Bany said during his presentation, describing revisions to the entrance and layout after resident feedback.

Supporters and opponents offered sharply different views on the site’s future. A pro‑course speaker said investors have proposed alternatives to keep the land as a golf and recreation venue and cited an offer to preserve it as such; several commenters who identified themselves as former employees or volunteers described the course as a long‑standing community asset.

By contrast, many residents urged the commission to reject the rezoning. They said the proposal would erase critical open space, add dangerous traffic and strain schools and emergency services. Garrett Veloux, a homeowner and real‑estate broker, said rezoning without final, written commitments would be premature and risky for neighbors. "Rezoning now ... is essentially writing a blank check," Veloux said.

Environmental and wildlife concerns appeared repeatedly. One resident urged the commission to require nest audits and other protections for raptors and bats, warning that harming protected species or their habitat could violate state and federal law.

Speakers also disputed the developer’s financial framing. The applicant described the golf course as a struggling private business and argued that new homes would create a steadier tax base; opponents countered that golf participation and golf‑adjacent property values have recovered in recent years and that conversion could reduce nearby home values.

Commission members framed their role as advisory: the Planning Commission issues a recommendation (favorable, unfavorable or no recommendation) that the county commissioners will consider at a later hearing. The commission attempted motions on the petition but, under its procedures, did not obtain the votes necessary to record a formal action that night. The chair invoked the commission’s rules and continued the item to the commission’s next regular meeting on December 8 at 06:30 in the same room.

No final vote or formal recommendation was forwarded to the county commissioners on MIP25-18 during the session. The continuation means the commission will take up the petition again with any additional written commitments or revised materials filed before the December meeting.

What happens next: the item is scheduled for the Planning Commission’s December 8 meeting; the commissioners — not the Planning Commission — will make the final decision on any rezoning if and when it reaches them.