At a Lee County Zoning Hearing Officer proceeding, the JW King Family Limited Partnership asked the county to rezone a 79.22‑acre parcel at 1215 Institute Boulevard in Dixon from R‑2 (single‑family residential) to AG‑1 (rural agricultural). Richard King, the partnership’s general partner, testified that the property has been in his family since 1915 and described current uses and conservation agreements on the land.

The request matters, county staff and nearby residents told the hearing officer, because the parcel lies adjacent to city of Dixon residential areas and to public parkland; county planning documents identify the site as future residential. Alice Hinkle, Lee County zoning administrator, entered the county’s exhibits showing the comprehensive plan map and a city of Dixon resolution formally objecting to the AG‑1 request. The hearing officer took the record and said he would issue a written decision later.

Richard King testified under oath that the partnership owns 79.22 acres and that the property “has been in the family since 1915.” He said about 35 acres are planted timber, roughly 33 acres are enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program through the U.S. Farm Service Agency (the contract there runs until about 2032, he said), and the parcel contains a single farmhouse with no sewer or township maintenance on Institute Boulevard. “The partnership would like to keep it as a family farm. We’re not planning to develop it,” King said. He told the hearing the farm is managed organically and that walnuts planted under a federal program will not be ready to harvest for decades.

Alice Hinkle, Lee County zoning administrator, presented the county’s exhibits and explained that the comprehensive plan’s future‑land‑use map shows the parcel as planned residential given its proximity to the city. Hinkle told the hearing officer she had provided notice to the City of Dixon and other agencies and produced a copy of the city’s resolution objecting to the AG‑1 map amendment. “This map identifies that area, the future land use for that parcel specifically is residential,” Hinkle said during her testimony.

Neighbors who spoke at the hearing said they had not observed active crop farming on the property in recent decades and raised questions about tree removal. Angela Miller, who said she lives at 1200 Institute Boulevard directly across from the parcel, told the hearing, “I have been across from you for 25 years. I’ve never seen any farming.” Another neighbor, Kathy Lane, showed photos she said were current and asserted that trees removed near the road were taken down by city crews, not by the applicant.

County counsel and the petitioner’s attorney exchanged questions with witnesses on use history, conservation program enrollment, and adjacency to other zoning districts. Hinkle noted that adjacent land includes parkland to the west zoned AG‑1 and active row crop acreage to the north; she said some nearby parcels under county jurisdiction are actively farmed while lands immediately to the south and southeast fall under city jurisdiction.

No formal vote or final ruling was issued at the hearing. The hearing officer said he would take the matter under advisement and prepare a written decision for distribution to Hinkle when completed.

If the county approves an AG‑1 map amendment, the change would allow agricultural uses that county planning staff told the officer could be incompatible with neighboring city residential areas; Hinkle recommended caution because the comprehensive plan projects residential use near Dixon. The petitioner argued the requested agricultural classification would align zoning with a century of farm use and existing conservation commitments.

The record for the petition includes a filed amended petition, proof of service, certified mail receipts to adjoining property owners, the Lee County comprehensive plan future‑land‑use map, and a City of Dixon resolution objecting to the AG‑1 request. The hearing officer indicated he would issue a written decision after reviewing the record.

The hearing covered factual testimony about the property’s acreage and conservation enrollment, neighborhood questions about tree removal, and the county planning argument that the parcel’s future use is residential under the comprehensive plan. The county administrator, petitioner, and neighbors provided evidence and testimony; the hearing officer reserved decision.