The Albion Hotel would be much more than a traditional hotel if granted the significant height and use variances needed for construction at the corner of Newark and Jersey avenues.The developer and his team behind the first-of-its-kind project in Jersey City made that perfectly clear as his case was introduced Thursday night to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. The controversial application attracted dozens to that first meeting before the board, a nearly four-hour marathon at the City Hall Annex Building.That allotted time wasn’t nearly enough to hear all the arguments and evidence, as well as listen to the public and make any decision on the impact of allowing the relief. The next meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Nov. 14.Dozens of people attended Thursday’s hearing inside the City Hall Annex Building. (Credit: Andy Milone)The Albion Hotel is proposed for a prominent piece of downtown property, integrating the old Capital One Bank, a 1920s style structure at 201 Newark Ave., into the design.The property is not zoned for a nearly 120-foot building, about double what’s allowed, with 72 rooms and nine stories. One issue has been the natural light it would block from the nearby condo building called Saffron.“What it will likely come down to the shadows on the Saffron, and we did everything we could to mitigate that,” said developer Frank Cretella of Staten Island after the meeting.The hospitality mogul has a history of adaptive reuse for such projects and sympathizes with the protestors. As is required, Jose Carballo, his architect, testified to the minimal impact the shadows would have during some winter months in portions of the early morning hours.The Albion is what’s being referred to as a boutique hotel, inspired by the Ace Hotel in New York City.In other words, the building will have more than just rooms. It’ll come with an art gallery, hospitality apprenticeship classrooms, recording studio, fitness center, pool, co-working lobby and a “mostly enclosed” rooftop jazz bar.Many aspects of the behemoth will be available to the “local community” and “local talent,” Cretella said. “This is much more than just a real estate development. This is a business which is living breathing entity,” he told the board as he introduced the project.“It employs peoples. Gives jobs and careers. There’s a lot going on inside a building like this. It’s taken a long time to get here.”The building comes with a goal of “creating experiences” and has been in the works since before the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Multiple iterations of the plans had been submitted to the city, and even this hearing had been pushed back a few times.Cretella said the project would demonstrate the “colorful side of luxury.”The developer recalled learning about what he initially liked about the Ace Hotel in New York City: a lobby full of neighbors working. They had access to a coffee shop and bar, and some of them, he said, “launched” their businesses there.Cretella’s Landmark Developers, doing business as 201 Newark Ave Property, recently opened a similar hotel by the same name in Summit and is now hoping to do the same by 2026 in Jersey City.A rendering of the hotel. Courtesy of Michael Graves Architecture. One significant difference is that the Jersey City location won’t be an event space. Cretella made it a condition of his application in response to the request made publicly by Anne Studholme, the attorney representing Saffron.The lengthy meeting led the impatient crowd to groan when the applicant’s attorney, Chuck Harrington, hinted at how there’s more to come at 9:19 p.m. before the public would get its opportunity speak. During all the testimony, the public and board heard the case made by the applicant’s planner, Matthew Seckler, as to why he felt the nine-story hotel should be allowed to be built under the land use laws.In arguing that the site can support the height and use, he pointed out how the hotel would be constructed on a unique site in the NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Zone, an area he says runs from Grove and Coles streets.It’s also nearby other zones allowing for such large buildings and is at a unique point along the corridor.  “It’s the lot size and the lot location that makes it unique suited, being at the terminus point, being a (corner) lot with three frontages, makes it an ideal site for this type of landmark destination,” he said. “Obviously, Landmark is also the applicant, but I’m not using that term in that way.”Seckler argued that nine stories is not representative of the height of the entire building, and that the taller aspects came about after all the “pushing and pulling” of the building’s mass as part of the effort to reduce the shadows. The applicant also voluntarily provided automated parking inside the building.“In terms of the amount of interior development, it’s very similar to a five or six story building on this property,” he said.Seckler pointed out the other “positives,” as well, he felt should be weighed in whether to allow the variances. His list included the community programming, economic impact, walkability improvements, green roof and the preservation of the old, significant building (though not technically historic since it’s not in a designated historic district or on a registry).“Precedence” should not be a worry. Seckler argued the case should be treated in isolation: “You can’t point to it and say this person ‘Got it. I deserve it.’” The planner also acted as one of the applicant’s engineers, noting the traffic impact would be minimal. Hotel occupants would be less likely to have cars compared to residents, and deliveries would often be made by vehicles already with routes in the area, he provided as some of his reasons. The public had the chance to ask questions of the applicant’s architect and heard hours of testimony from him, the planner and engineers.Attendees haven’t yet had the chance to weigh in on the overall application. But once they do, the Zoning Board of Adjustments will have the final say on the project – not the Planning Board or City Council, because of the significant variances needing approval.Thursday’s meeting was one of board’s best attended session as the city’s planner, Francisco Espinoza, pointed out. He seized the moment by reminding people to get out and vote in the upcoming election. Many city planners were in attendance because of the application’s uniqueness.Studholme, the attorney representing Saffron, questioned the applicant’s witnesses and suggested that other municipalities would allow for more hearings.“I encourage the public to come to the next meeting. We will have our own witnesses and experts,” said Studholme out in the Annex Building parking.Studholme previously told the Jersey City Times that she felt “legally” the other side didn’t have a case.The Saffron Condo Board has come out against the project alongside Councilman James Solomon, who was at the meeting, along with the Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association, Harsimus Cove Neighborhood Association, Van Vorst Neighborhood Association, Village Neighborhood Association, Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association and Paulus Hook Neighborhood Association.Board member Carl Czaplicki used his time to question the applicant’s architect, who’ll be unavailable for the next meeting. The applicant’s other witnesses will be questioned at the November meeting.Remembering how he opened his first bank account as a kid at the former bank, Czaplicki asked the bank’s vault would be kept. Someone from Cretella’s camp joked that it could become a wine cellar.“I used to go with my grandmother to that bank…it was originally the Trust Company of New Jersey, then North Fork Bank and then Capital.”The post Zoning Board Begins Hearing on Revised Design for Controversial Downtown Hotel appeared first on Jersey City Times.