AT&T WIRELESS PSC, INC. v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, KENTUCKY; KENTON COUNTY & MUNICIPAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION; AND THE HIGHLAND CEMETERY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
DECEMBER 21, 2001; 10:00 a.m.
TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2000-CA-001059-MR
AT&T WIRELESS PSC, INC.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE GREGORY M. BARTLETT, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 99-CI-00428
v.
CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, KENTUCKY;
KENTON COUNTY & MUNICIPAL PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION;
AND THE HIGHLAND CEMETERY
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
KNOPF, SCHRODER, AND TACKETT, JUDGES.
KNOPF, JUDGE:
AT&T Wireless PSC, Inc. (AT&T Wireless) appeals
from a declaratory judgment and injunction of the Kenton Circuit
Court prohibiting it from building a wireless communications
facility on an undeveloped parcel of land owned by and adjacent
to a cemetery.
This matter concerns the interpretation of KRS
381.690, which requires cities to protect burial grounds within
their limits from use as building sites.
AT&T Wireless contends
that the trial court erroneously interpreted KRS 381.690 and that
the statute does not prohibit construction of the facility.
find that the trial court’s interpretation of KRS 381.690 was
We
correct and that the injunction was appropriate.
Hence, we
affirm.
The Independence Cemetery is located at 5388 Madison
Pike, Independence, Kentucky.
The property consists of a 67-acre
tract of land located within the City of Independence.1
Independence Cemetery Company filed its original articles of
incorporation in 1886 and filed revised articles in 1983.
In
1987, Independence Cemetery merged with the Highland Cemetery.
The merged company, Highland Cemetery Association, is a Kentucky
nonprofit corporation.2
In 1996, Highland Cemetery purchased two tracts of land
for the purpose of expanding the Independence Cemetery.
These
tracts are located to the south of the existing cemetery.
Highland has not developed or sold gravesites on either of these
tracts.
In 1998, AT&T Wireless3 entered into an agreement with
Highland Cemetery to lease a 4,900 square foot section of the
recently acquired portion of the Independence Cemetery.
AT&T
Wireless intends to erect a wireless communications facility
(WCF) on the leased property.
The WCF consists of a 285-foot
tower, an unmanned prefabricated equipment building (12 feet by
20 feet), an access road with turnaround, and a perimeter fence
1
Independence is a third-class city located in Kenton County, Kentucky. KRS 81.010(3).
2
The original Highland Cemetery was incorporated on March 6, 1869.
3
AT&T Wireless is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T
Corporation. AT&T Wireless is authorized to do business in Kentucky, and has a licence from
the Federal Communications Commission to provide personal communications services in
Kentucky.
-2-
enclosing the leased area.
The proposed WCF is approximately
2,000 feet east of Madison Pike and approximately 1,400 feet
south of Hartland Boulevard.
The closest headstone is
approximately 1,035 feet away from the proposed WCF, and the area
planned for expansion of gravesites in the cemetery is
approximately 1,312 feet away.
Highland Cemetery has no plans to
expand into the area leased by AT&T Wireless for at least the
next hundred years.
On December 11, 1998, AT&T Wireless filed an
application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) to construct
and operate the proposed WCF.
Pursuant to KRS 100.987, AT&T
Wireless provided a copy of the application to the Kenton County
& Municipal Planning and Zoning Commission (the Planning
Commission).
The Planning Commission forwarded the application
to the Northern Kentucky Area Planning Commission (NKAPC)4 for
review by the staff, hearings, and a recommendation.
The NKAPC
staff initially recommended approval of the application.
However, the staff amended its recommendation after its counsel
stated his opinion that KRS 381.690 prohibited construction of
the WCF on Highland’s property.
On January 27, 1999, the NKAPC
conducted a public hearing and reviewed the application.
Following the hearing, the NKAPC recommended that the Planning
Commission deny the application in light of its counsel’s
opinion.
On February 11, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted
its own public hearing and reviewed the application and the
4
The NKAPC is an area planning commission established pursuant to KRS 147.620.
-3-
recommendation of the NKAPC.
The Planning Commission concluded
that the proposed WCF would not violate KRS 381.690 because
Highland Cemetery had no plans to use that portion of its
property for burial grounds within the foreseeable future.
However, the Planning Commission did require AT&T Wireless to
move the location of the proposed WCF approximately 150 feet to
the southwest, to a point with the same or higher base elevation
as the original location.
The Planning Commission concluded that
this change in location would reduce the effect of the noise from
the WCF on the adjacent residential properties.
On February 24, 1999, the City moved to intervene in
the action pending before the PSC.
intervene on March 1, 1999.
The PSC permitted the City to
However, the PSC subsequently
determined that it had no authority to review the Planning
Commission’s recommendation.
On March 3, 1999, the City filed an appeal from the
Planning Commission’s approval of AT&T Wireless’s application.
Subsequently, the City filed an amended complaint to state a
zoning appeal under KRS 100.347 and a declaratory judgment
action.
On July 12, 1999, AT&T Wireless filed motions for
declaratory and summary judgment, asserting that KRS 381.690 is
not applicable, and that the trial court did not have
jurisdiction to hear an appeal under KRS 100.347 from the
Planning Commission’s recommendation to the PSC.
Commission joined in the motions.
-4-
The Planning
Following resolution of the jurisdictional question in
the appeal,5 the trial court considered the issue presented in
the declaratory judgment action.
In an order entered on February
2, 2000, the trial court found that KRS 381.690 prohibits
construction of the WCF on any property within the cemetery.
Thereafter, the trial court entered an amended judgment enjoining
AT&T Wireless and Highland Cemetery from building the WCF.
AT&T
Wireless now appeals.
The primary issue presented in this appeal concerns the
application of KRS 381.690, which provides as follows:
Whenever any burial grounds lie within the
corporate limits of a city the governing
authorities of the city shall protect the
burial grounds from being used for dumping
ground, building sites, playgrounds, places
of entertainment and amusement, public parks,
athletic fields or parking grounds.
The facts with respect to this issue are not in
dispute, and the trial court's judgment was based strictly on its
construction of KRS 381.690.
Because the construction and
application of a statute is a matter of law, our consideration of
this issue is de novo, in the sense that we owe no deference to
5
On October 6, 1999, the trial court granted partial summary judgment for AT&T
Wireless and the Planning Commission. The court found that KRS 100.347 does not permit an
appeal from the Planning Commission’s recommendations made to other governmental bodies.
The City filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s partial summary judgment finding that it
lacked jurisdiction to review the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the PSC. Appeal
No. 2000-CA-001144. However, on November 6, 2000, this Court granted the City’s motion to
dismiss the appeal. This appeal is taken from the trial court’s declaratory judgment entered on
February 2, 2000, and its amended judgment and injunction entered on April 6, 2000.
-5-
the trial court’s interpretation.6
Nonetheless, we find that the
trial court’s reading of the statute is correct.
AT&T Wireless first asserts that the term “burial
grounds” does not include all property owned by a cemetery.
Rather, it takes the position that only land which has been
expressly set aside or used for burial purposes should be
considered burial grounds.
The area where the proposed WCF will
be located has not been developed for burial plots, nor is it
within 1,000 feet of any portion of the cemetery which has been
developed.
The term “burial grounds” is not expressly defined in
KRS Chapter 381.
However, KRS 381.710 relates to evidence
indicating that land has been set aside for burial purposes.7
The statute provides that the fact that a part of all of the
grounds has been used for burial purposes shall be such evidence.
Furthermore, the fact that graves are not visible on any part of
the grounds shall not be construed as evidence that such grounds
were not set aside and used for burial purposes.
KRS 381.710 implies that if any part of the grounds are
used for burial purposes, the entire grounds will be presumed to
be used for burial purposes.
AT&T Wireless argues that no
portion of the two tracts of land purchased in 1996 have ever
been used for burial purposes.
As a result, AT&T Wireless
contends that the presumption set out in KRS 382.705 does not
apply.
6
Bob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Ky., 983 S.W.2d 488, 490 (1999).
7
Grinestaff v. Grinestaff, Ky., 318 S.W.2d 881, 885 (1958).
-6-
Nevertheless, the parties agree that the two tracts are
a part of the Independence Cemetery.
The language in KRS Chapter
381 indicates that the term "cemetery" contemplates places where
dead persons are buried.8
The term “burial grounds” is more
expansive than the word cemetery.
includes burial grounds.
But a “cemetery” necessarily
Consequently, we find that all portions
of the Independence Cemetery should be considered burial grounds.
We do not suggest that the presumption created by KRS
381.710 can never be rebutted.
However, the evidence does not
support the inference that the property at issue was not intended
for use as a cemetery.
Indeed, Highland Cemetery purchased these
tracts for the purpose of expanding the Independence Cemetery.9
AT&T Wireless next argues that the City need not
prevent construction of the WCF to comply with KRS 381.690.
It
notes that the statute requires the City to “protect” burial
grounds from certain enumerated uses, but it does not require the
City to prohibit those uses.
Since the Planning Commission moved
the proposed WCF further from the active portions of the
cemetery, AT&T Wireless contends that the City has sufficiently
complied with KRS 381.690.
Along a similar line, AT&T Wireless
points out that there are other utilities and buildings which are
located on the grounds of the cemetery.
8
As a result, it contends
Loid v. Kell, Ky. App. 844 S.W.2d 428, 431 (1992).
9
Although the issue is not properly before this Court, we question whether Highland
Cemetery is authorized under its articles of incorporation to purchase real property for any other
reason than for cemetery purposes. Furthermore, if some of the property owned by a cemetery
were considered non-burial grounds, then such property would likewise not be exempt from
taxation under Ky. Const. § 170.
-7-
that the trial court’s interpretation of KRS 381.690 is
unreasonable because it would prevent the construction of any of
these buildings or utilities.
Neither argument bears up to close scrutiny.
First,
KRS 381.690 requires the City to “protect the burial grounds from
being used for . . . building sites.”
(Emphasis Added).
This
statute sets out a clear public policy which prevents the use of
burial grounds for purposes which are unrelated to burial of the
dead.10
As a general rule, cemetery grounds may be used for uses
or purposes which are related to the cemetery’s purposes.11
There is no factual dispute that the buildings and utilities on
the property are incidental to the cemetery’s operation.
In
contrast, the proposed WCF has no relation to the cemetery’s
operation.
Lastly, AT&T Wireless argues that its WCF is not a
“building site” prohibited by KRS 381.690.
AT&T Wireless notes
that it is a “utility” within the definition of KRS
278.010(3)(e), and that the WCF is a “facility” used in
connection with the business of a utility.12
AT&T Wireless
contends that KRS 381.690 does not expressly prohibit a facility
such as the WCF on cemetery property.
We disagree.
KRS 381.690 clearly prohibits burial
grounds from being used for building sites.
10
Arguably, the 285-
See Cave Hill Cemetery Co. v. Gosnell, 156 Ky. 599, 161 S.W. 980, 983 (1913).
11
14 Am. Jur. 2d Cemeteries § 25, p. 571 (2000).
12
KRS 278.010(9) (now 278.010(11)).
-8-
foot tower may not be considered a “building site” for purposes
of the statute.
However, the WCF also includes a prefabricated
equipment building.
Consequently, we conclude that the WCF is a
“building site” within the meaning of KRS 381.690.
The trial
court acted properly when it enjoined AT&T Wireless from
constructing the WCF on Highland Cemetery’s property.
Accordingly, the declaratory judgment and injunction
entered by the Kenton Circuit Court are affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
CITY OF INDEPENDENCE:
Harry D. Rankin
Holland N. McTyeire, V
Greenbaum, Doll & McDonald
PLLC
Covington, Kentucky
Peggy Murphy Barker
Thomas C. Lyons
Jeffrey W. Ruple
Murphy & Lyons, PSC
Covington, Kentucky
Catherine Blue
Chief Counsel Land Use
AT&T Wireless Services
Paramus, New Jersey
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
KENTON COUNTY & MUNICIPAL
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION:
David A. Schneider
Debra S. Pleatman
Ziegler & Schneider, PSC
Covington, Kentucky
No Brief for Appellee:
The Highland Cemetery
-9-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.