Pioneer Cemetery commission asks board to consider moving utility pole into unused corner

The Jackson County Pioneer Cemetery Commission asked the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to consider permitting the relocation of a utility pole and three meters into an unused portion of Sweezy Cemetery to improve farm access for a neighboring property.

George Doherty, representing the Pioneer Cemetery Commission, said the cemetery sits along Highway 61 about 3 miles south of Otter Creek and that approximately 40% of the two‑acre site is currently used for burials while the remaining 60% remains open field. The Mayberry family, whose lane runs beside the cemetery, asked to move a pole from the lane into a far corner inside the cemetery’s fence to avoid conflicts with large farm equipment.

Doherty said the Mayberrys agreed to pay any relocation costs, to install a gate if REC (the local rural electric cooperative) needs access, and to repair the county’s wire fence where needed. He said the section proposed for the pole contains no known burials based on local probing but acknowledged the commission had not probed every inch and could not guarantee the absence of unmarked burials.

Supervisors and attendees raised legal and liability questions. One supervisor asked whether Pioneer Cemetery designation imposes state restrictions on use and whether placing a permanent pole could conflict with historic‑preservation rules; Doherty said he had not researched state law. Board members asked county staff to consult REC and the county attorney about liability if a pole on cemetery property failed, about any easements REC would require, and how moving meters could affect a nonresident property owner whose meter sits on the site.

Sue Mayberry, who spoke for the adjacent landowner, said the owners preferred the meter and service to be located near their building and that they were willing to pay relocation costs. Board members asked that REC confirm insurance and easement requirements and that staff attempt to contact the absentee meter owner before proceeding.

The board did not approve a relocation at the meeting; members asked staff to return the item to the agenda with answers to liability, easement and property‑owner notification questions and said they would consider approval if those issues were resolved.