Case Name: CAPITAL QUARRIES, INC., Appellant, v. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, County of Franklin, State of Missouri, et al., Respondents, and Steve Stevenson, George Smith, and Boyd Rowden, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-10-05
Citations: 149 S.W.3d 471
Docket Number: No. ED 84006
Parties: CAPITAL QUARRIES, INC., Appellant, v. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, County of Franklin, State of Missouri, et al., Respondents, and Steve Stevenson, George Smith, and Boyd Rowden, Respondents.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 149
Pages: 471–472

Head Matter:
CAPITAL QUARRIES, INC., Appellant, v. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, County of Franklin, State of Missouri, et al., Respondents, and Steve Stevenson, George Smith, and Boyd Rowden, Respondents.
No. ED 84006.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Oct. 5, 2004.
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 4, 2004.
Application for Transfer Denied Dec. 21, 2004.
I.I. Lamke, Washington, MO, for appellant.
Mark Vincent, Christopher Jensen, Union, MO, for respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Capital Quarries, Inc. ("Quarry") appeals from the circuit court's judgment affirming the Franklin County Board of Zoning Adjustment's ("Board") decision upholding the Franklin County Planning and Zoning Commission's ("Commission") grant of a conditional use permit to Quarry for the operation of a quarry.
Quarry appealed to Board and then to the Circuit Court, arguing that Commission had imposed invalid conditions in the conditional use permit. Quarry now appeals to our court, asserting that Board erred in affirming the conditional use permit in so far as it requires Quarry to reconstruct, maintain, and regulate the traffic speed on Dry Branch Creek Road.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error and affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).