Chaim, I do not know the answer to your question but I found an interesting thing which I never knew (not connected to your question) in Teshuvos Rivevos Efraim vol. 6 page 503 DH vK'Z, that when one extends a cemetery one extends it in the direction away from the city, not in the direction of the city, so as not to hint that death is approaching the city.

Good Shabbos

Dovid Bloom

1) Chaim, after thinking more about your question, I realised that you are assuming that the Temple can be compared Halachically to a cemetery. This may indeed be the opinion of the Pitchei Teshuvah on Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 368:1 in the name of Chatam Sofer, who writes that a place which has been specified for a cemetery, possesses the holiness of a Beit Kneset.

We know that a Beit Knesset is often compared to the Beit Hamikdash, as the Gemara Megilah 29a cites the verse (Yechezkel 11:16) "And I will be for them as a small Mikdash", which refers to Batei Kneisiot and Batei Midrashot in Bavel. If a cemetery is compared to a shul, and a shul is compared to the Beit Hamikdash, then we can say that a cemetery can be compared to the Beit Hamikdash.

2) However, the Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 209:15 DH uBeHa disagrees with the Chatam Sofer. Chazon Ish writes that a Beit Kneset possesses kedusha and is like the Mikdash since the name of Hash-m is called upon it. A cemetery is different. It is prepared for the Mitzvah of chesed, but does not possess kedushah.

3) Therefore if we should find somebody who connects extending a cemetery to extending holy places this would not fit in with the opinion of the Chazon Ish. However, I must concede that I have not even found anyone who connects extending a Beit Kneset to extending holy places.

Dovid Bloom