Last month, Spirit News ran an article about a 19th-century cemetery known as the Mutual Burial Ground of Kensington. In addition to providing an in-depth look at the history of the site, the piece briefly detailed local historian Ken Milano’s efforts to have a portion of the grounds of the former cemetery protected by a designation from the Philadelphia Historical Commission (PHC). The purpose of this designation would be to preserve the site pending an archeological investigation for what Milano and his colleagues estimate to be dozens, perhaps hundreds, of unremoved bodies.

 However, there is a conflict with Milano’s application. The portion of the cemetery it concerns is limited to the land underneath a couple of garages at 1834-48 Frankford Avenue. This property was recently acquired by developer Ori Feibush and is slated for demolition. A historic designation could present a costly interruption for this project and Feibush believes that Milano’s application is a personal attack on his business.

 On June 15th, the Designation Committee held a public meeting to determine whether to bring this application before the PHC proper. The Designation Committee is a panel of scholars with backgrounds in preservation, architectural history, and/or archeology. They advise the full board of the PHC which is made up largely of political appointees (the heads of Housing, Licenses and Inspections, City Planning, etc).

 Milano was present at the meeting with several colleagues including, Jed Levin, the head archeologist at Independence National Historical Park; Aaron Wunsch, an assistant professor in The University of Pennsylvania’s preservation program, and Andrew Fearon, a preservationist and Riverwards local. Feibush was present with his attorney.

 Milano spoke first, summarizing his application with an emphasis on the lack of evidence of bodies being removed from the land.

 Feibush’s attorney opened by saying, “we are dismayed by this nomination in bad faith,” going on to accuse Milano of trying to stymie development for the sake of a personal vendetta against Feibush. The attorney also asserted that there have been archeological investigations on this site, conducted by the developer and that his client keeps Cultural Heritage Research Services (CHRS, a private archeological research firm) on retainer specifically for this purpose.

 “We know what to do if we find a body,” he said.

 The attorney went on to call Milano’s project “a fishing expedition” several times, as well as repeating that it was “motivated by malice not history.”

 “I have a thirty year history of historical preservation, I have a zero year history of malice,” Milano responded.

 Feibush himself gave a statement in which he outlined his history with Milano and Fearon, saying that he asked them if this land was historically significant before he made plans to develop on the property. Feibush claimed both men said specifically it was not significant and that they would not nominate the property at 1834-48 Frankford.

 In what was easily the longest presentation of the day (the Committee had about 20 other applications to discuss in this meeting), the moderator asked several times for everyone speaking to please be more concise with their arguments.

 Levin, Wunsch, and Fearon all gave brief statements testifying to the historical significance of the property. Levin recounted a few specific cases in which many bodies were found under less-than-likely circumstances, buried very deep and en masse.

 Feibush and his attorney restated some of their concerns and then the Committee voted 3-2 to bring the matter to the PHC. The next meeting will take place July 8th and will offer a conclusion on this confusing chapter in the Riverward’s historic preservation effort.