dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion affirming the BZA’s denial of the special use permit. Because the BZA’s decision is inconsistent with its findings of fact and is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence, I would reverse and remand the cause for issuance of the special use permit.
In reaching this conclusion, I am mindful that our scope of review is limited to determining whether the BZA’s decision “is supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record or whether the judgment is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unlawful or in excess of its jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Noland Rd. Raceways, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment of Kansas City, 145 S.W.3d 455, 456 (Mo.App.2004). We cannot substitute our judgment on the evidence for that of *19the BZA, and we must defer to the agency’s findings on the weight of the evidence and credibility of witnesses. Roorda v. City of Arnold, 142 S.W.3d 786, 789 (Mo. App.2004).
The BZA denied the special use permit based solely on its conclusion that the quarry expansion was “incompatibl[e]” with the surrounding residential development. In Point II of this appeal, MMM contends the decision is unsupported by substantial and competent evidence, in that the BZA rejected the opinion testimony of neighboring property owners and made findings of fact contrary to its determination of incompatibility. MMM further argues the BZA’s denial was an abuse of discretion because the proposed use of the property met the County’s standards for a special use permit.
Under local administrative procedures, property owners may be allowed to seek a special use permit to use land in a way expressly permitted under conditions set forth in the zoning ordinance. State ex rel. Presbyterian Church of Washington, Mo. v. City of Washington, 911 S.W.2d 697, 701 (Mo.App.1995). As a general rule, if the proposed use satisfies the ordinance standards, the zoning agency is required to issue the special use permit, subject to reasonable conditions that would mitigate any harmful effects from the proposed use. Id.
The Cass County Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section C, allows the issuance of a special use permit upon a showing that “adequate provision has been made for the following:”
1. The location and size of the proposed use in relation to the site and to adjacent sites and uses of property; and the nature and intensity of operations proposed thereon.
2. Accessibility of the property to police, fire, refuse collection and other municipal services; adequacy of ingress and egress to and within the site; traffic flow and control; and the adequacy of off-street parking and loading areas.
3. Utilities and services, including water, sewer, drainage, gas, and electricity, with particular reference to location, availability, capacity and compatibility.
4. The location, nature, and height of buildings, walls, fences, and other improvements; their relation to adjacent property and uses; and the need for buffering or screening.
5. The adequacy of required yard and open space requirements and sign provisions.
6. The general compatibility with adjacent properties, other properties in the district, and the general safety, health, comfort and general welfare of the community.
MMM and neighboring property owners presented evidence to address these standards at the BZA hearing. Following the hearing, the BZA ruled that MMM made adequate provisions for all of the standards except the general compatibility requirement in item six. The BZA also made the following findings of fact:
1. The Subject Property is currently zoned agricultural.
2. The land surrounding the Subject Property is primarily used for agricultural and single-family residential uses.
3. The area surrounding the Subject Property has developed primarily for residential use and is pilme residential development.
4. The Subject Property is the subject of annexation proceeding initiated by the City of Peculiar, Missouri, and the property abuts the corporate limits of the City.
5. Martin Marietta currently operates a rock quarry adjacent to the Subject *20Property (the “Existing Quarry”). Quarrying in the vicinity of the Subject Property began approximately fifty years ago and has continued to the present.
6. Limestone is an important natural resource both to the County and other governmental entities and to [sic] for private construction in the region.
7. There is a significant amount of limestone located on the Subject Property.
8. Quarrying is permitted upon land zoned agricultural upon obtaining a special use permit pursuant to the provisions of the Cass County Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the special use permit is to allow an opportunity to explore conditions mitigating the permitted use. The application was remanded by the Cass County Circuit Court because the conditions were not discussed when the application was previously considered by the County.
9. As proposed by Martin Marietta, only limestone extraction will occur on the Subject Property; no processing, stockpiling or sales of limestone will take place on the Subject Property. Processing, stockpiling and sale of limestone will continue to take place on the Existing Quarry. There will be no increase in the intensity of production or expansion of the existing processing facilities as a result of the grant of the Special Use Permit.
[10].1 There are existing fire, police and other municipal services, which serve the Subject Property.
[11] Drainage from the Subject Property will be through the Existing Quarry; none of the drainage will travel across property not owned or leased by Martin Marietta.
[12]. Sewer connections and gas are not necessary for the operation of the quarry. There is existing water and electrical service to the Subject Property-
[13]. There are underground natural gas lines, overhead electrical lines and a backup water service line located on the Subject Property.
[14]. No new buildings will be constructed on the Subject Property.
[15]. Prior to commencing quarrying on the Subject Property, Martin Marietta shall construct a fence not less than six feet (6') in height on all boundaries of the Subject Property which adjoin land not owned or leased by Martin Marietta or a road right of way. Such fence will be located at least fifty feet (50') from the edge of any excavation.
[16]. On all boundaries of the Subject Property which adjoin land not owned or leased by Martin Marietta, Martin Marietta shall provide, prior to the commencement of quarrying on the Subject Property, berms to reduce noise and sight distractions where deemed necessary by the County Zoning Officer. Such berms shall be not less than eight feet (8') in height and shall have a slope of not greater than 3:1. Temporary berms shall be constructed along property lines which do not adjoin land owned by Martin Marietta. These shall be constructed of topsoil, and shall be flattened as part of reclamation when quarrying adjacent to the berm is completed. Permanent berms shall be constructed or (sic) shale and other non-topsoil overburden, with topsoil on top for vegetation, along road rights of way.
[17]. Quarrying operations will be set back not less than one hundred feet (100') from property boundaries. All *21quarrying and mining operations shall be set back one hundred feet (100') from any road right of way or property line adjoining property not owned or leased by Martin Marietta, measured at the surface, and shall be set back one thousand feet (1,000') from Harper Road. Within such setbacks, Martin Marietta shall not build or store equipment or quarrying materials, but Martin Marietta may build berms and/or fences. In addition, Martin Marietta will not conduct blasting within six hundred feet (600') of any habitable structure in existence on March 30, 2004.
[18]. Martin Marietta has submitted a site development plan showing the proposed use.
[19]. Ex parte evidence has not been considered by the Board in reaching its decision.
[20]. The City of Peculiar has commenced the process of annexing the Subject Property but has not completed such annexation, which requires court review and approval. The Subject Property remains in the County, subject to County jurisdiction.
[21], The Existing Quarry is operating in accordance with all applicable laws of the County, including the Special Use Permit issued on a portion of the Existing Quarry in 1997.
[22], Martin Marietta presented testimony and evidence to the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Adjustment that the grant of the special use permit would not reduce the property value of nearby property. No fact based evidence or expert testimony was provided to the contrary.
[23]. Martin Marietta presented testimony and evidence to the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Adjustment that the roads are adequate for the operation of a quarry on the Subject Property and that truck traffic from the operation of the quarry is not harmful to the community. No fact based evidence or expert testimony was provided to the contrary.
[24]. The County Planning Board has recommended approval of the special use permit.
Of these findings, numbers 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 22, and 23 relate to the general compatibility of the quarry operation with surrounding neighborhoods and the safety, health, comfort, and welfare of the residents therein. The subject findings indicate that the surrounding property was primarily used for residential development. Neighboring residents testified, during the BZA hearing, that the new quarry would adversely affect their property values and result in increased noise, dust, unsightly distractions, and traffic congestion. The BZA found that MMM had addressed those concerns by agreeing to blasting restrictions, setback rules, and the construction of permanent berms and fences around the quarry. The BZA also found that MMM had presented credible evidence to show that the quarry operation would neither reduce surrounding property values nor create harm to the community from truck traffic. Notably, the BZA found that neighboring property owners failed to produce any “fact-based evidence or expert testimony” to the contrary.
The BZA’s findings are fully supported by evidence in the record. However, the findings do not support the conclusion ultimately reached by the BZA with regard to item 6 of the zoning ordinance. None of the agency’s twenty-four findings provide any facts to suggest that the quarry operation is incompatible with the surrounding residential development or the general welfare of the community residents. In fact, the relevant findings indicate the opposite: that MMM took adequate provi*22sions to make the quarry compatible with adjacent properties.
The majority opinion correctly observes that the testimony of neighboring residents ostensibly supports the BZA’s conclusion that the quarry was incompatible with residential development. However, that testimony was expressly rejected by the BZA on the critical issues of property values and traffic congestion. The BZA made no findings whatsoever to credit the concerns of neighboring property owners. The applicable standard of review requires us to examine the record to determine if the facts found are supported by substantial evidence. Roorda, 142 S.W.3d at 789. The fact-finding function rests with the BZA, and “even if the evidence would support either of two findings,” we are bound by the BZA’s factual determinations. Id. at 789-90 (quoting Orion Sec., Inc. v. Bd. of Police Comm’rs of Kansas City, 90 S.W.3d 157, 163 (Mo.App.2002)). Because the record supports the BZA’s findings that the expanded quarry would not harm the interests of surrounding property owners, we must defer to those factual determinations even though there is evidence to the contrary.
The facts, as found by the BZA, do not provide substantial evidence to support the denial of the special use permit. The BZA acknowledged that MMM satisfied the first five requirements of the zoning ordinance, but the findings of fact also indicate that MMM fulfilled the sixth requirement by showing that adequate provisions were made to insure the compatibility of the quarry with surrounding properties and residents. The findings demonstrate that the proposed use met local standards and, therefore, the BZA was obligated to issue the special use permit subject to reasonable conditions to mitigate any potential harm. Presbyterian Church of Washington, Mo., 911 S.W.2d at 701.
. The actual BZA decision contains two paragraphs numbered as 9.