Donald and Annette Early asked the Lee County Zoning Hearing Officer to amend the zoning for their 4‑plus acre lot at 602 River Lane in Dixon so they may keep a privately boarded horse on the property and construct a small barn. The couple originally filed to rezone from R‑2 (single‑family residential) to AG‑1 (agricultural), but county staff proposed amending the petition to R‑1 (rural residential) at the hearing; that procedural amendment drew no objections from the parties present.

The change matters locally because R‑1 allows limited agricultural accessory uses such as private stables while keeping the parcel in a residential classification that county staff and the city of Dixon said better matches the comprehensive plan for the area. County staff explained R‑1 includes specific limitations intended to reduce conflicts with neighboring residential uses, including a 300‑foot restriction on certain agricultural facilities near other dwellings.

Donald Early testified the family owns a roughly four‑acre parcel with a house, a pool and an existing 40‑by‑40 shed. He said the family purchased a horse about a year ago for his daughter, Brenna, and has been boarding the animal offsite. “We want to bring him to our property in order for her to be able to care for him and be with him and to be able to train more,” Donald Early said. The petitioners told the hearing they plan a 24‑by‑24 shelter to house the horse and store feed and tack; they said the intended stable site is more than 300 feet from the nearest neighboring dwelling.

Brenna Early, the petitioners’ 14‑year‑old daughter, addressed the officer and described the personal and recreational importance of keeping the horse at home. “Having Tito home would not only help us, but help him too,” she said, describing the riding and training routine she would observe if the animal were housed closer to the family.

Alice Hinkle, Lee County zoning administrator, presented the county’s exhibits for the petition and explained why staff recommended the R‑1 alternative rather than AG‑1: the comprehensive plan’s future‑land‑use map designates the area as residential, and R‑1 is the least‑intensive residential district that permits accessory agricultural uses under set conditions. Hinkle also introduced a Palmyra Township letter of no objection and an email from the City of Dixon attorney indicating the city “voted not to object” to the Earlys’ petition as it was presented to the city.

Hinkle read relevant code restrictions into the record, noting that R‑1 permits private stables as accessory uses but prohibits certain agricultural activities “within 300 feet of any dwelling except the dwelling of the owner.” She also confirmed the Earlys’ lot meets the R‑1 minimum lot size requirement of two acres and that the planned stable location is more than 300 feet from the nearest dwelling, as testified by the applicants.

Neighbors and intervenors who spoke raised questions and concerns but offered limited formal opposition. Andrew Allen, who said his mother owns property immediately north of the Early parcel, told the hearing he had recently received notice of the petition and does not oppose the proposal if the family manages the animal responsibly. No parties offered a certified appraisal or other expert testimony on property values; some neighbors said they were concerned in principle that an agricultural reclassification could affect home values but provided no specific valuations.

Procedurally, county staff moved to amend the petition from the originally filed AG‑1 request to R‑1 at the start of the hearing; the petitioners and the assembled neighbors raised no objection, and the hearing proceeded on that basis. The hearing officer said he will take the record under advisement and issue a written decision for distribution to the zoning administrator.

County exhibits for the file include the petition and amended petition, proof of publication, certified mailings to adjacent owners, photos and signs posted on the property, the Lee County comprehensive plan map, a Palmyra Township no‑objection letter, and an email from the City of Dixon attorney indicating the city did not object. Hinkle advised that the R‑1 classification contains standards the Earlys must meet (setbacks, lot size and the 300‑foot restriction) and said R‑1 is intended to reduce compatibility concerns raised by an outright agricultural classification near city limits.

The hearing officer did not issue a final decision at the meeting and said he will prepare a written order after reviewing the record.