ZMA-2025-007: Marlboro Station Rezoning Hearing - September 16, 2026

On September 16, 2026, the Zoning Hearing Examiner conducted a virtual hearing on ZMA-2025-007, a request by ZT of Maryland LLC to rezone approximately 1.68 acres at 5541 and 5545 Marlboro Pike, District Heights, Maryland, from the RMF-20 (Residential, Multifamily-20) Zone to the RMF-48 (Residential, Multifamily-48) Zone. The project is named Marlboro Station. The applicant argued that changes in the character of the neighborhood and a mistake in the 2009 Marlboro Pike Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment (SMA) justify the rezoning. No members of the public noted opposition.

Consent Calendar

• None. The hearing did not include a consent calendar.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comments were offered. The hearing examiner noted no opponents present.

Discussion Items

• Property Owner Testimony (Rob Tikoyan): Rob Tikoyan, sole owner of ZT of Maryland LLC, testified that the two parcels are currently a used car dealership and an auto repair shop. He purchased 5545 Marlboro Pike in 2022 for $1.4 million and 5541 Marlboro Pike in 2024 for $900,000, with over $2.6 million invested including consultant fees. He stated that without rezoning, redevelopment would not be profitable and the properties would continue operating as-is. The current zoning (RMF-20 on the front, RMF-48 on the rear) creates a split-zoning issue because the developable land is in the front (RMF-20) while the rear has environmental constraints (steep slopes, stream, wetlands).
• Planning Expert Testimony (Eddie Diaz Campbell): Admitted as an expert in land use planning, Diaz Campbell testified that the character of the neighborhood has changed since 2009 due to the 2022 Marlboro Pike Pedestrian Safety Project, which reduced travel lanes from four to two, added bicycle facilities, wider sidewalks, and pedestrian crossings. These multimodal improvements make higher-density residential development more appropriate. He also identified a mistake in the 2009 SMA: the property is a single legal parcel under common ownership but was split-zoned (RMF-20 on tax parcels 12 and 95, RMF-48 on tax parcel 10) without recognition of this fact. The split zoning complicates unified development, as the rear environmental area is less developable. He argued that RMF-48 is appropriate given the improved corridor and the property's location.
• Land Planner Testimony (Mark Ferguson): Admitted as an expert, Ferguson provided additional historical research, tracing the property's legal status to the 1800s. He concluded that tax parcels 10 and 12 are part of a single legal parcel, not two separate lots. He also noted that the 2009 sector plan miscalculated existing densities of surrounding multifamily developments, which are higher than what RMF-20 allows. This mistaken factual predicate supports the rezoning. Ferguson criticized the staff report for not giving sufficient weight to the cumulative effect of public investments and private reinvestments since 2022, including renovations at Holly Spring Meadows and Dunhill South Apartments. He asserted that RMF-48 would not automatically allow the maximum height (110 feet) or density due to neighborhood compatibility standards and site constraints.
• Staff Report Acknowledgment: The hearing examiner noted that the technical staff report recognized some changes to Marlboro Pike but argued they were insufficient to justify RMF-48. The applicant's experts countered that the report underweighted the cumulative changes.
• Issues Raised by Examiner and Opposing Counsel (Mr. Brown): Mr. Brown questioned whether the improvements to Marlboro Pike were merely routine maintenance (medians, curbs) rather than substantial change. He also challenged the mistake argument, noting that commercial uses on the site have been profitable and continue to serve the residential neighborhood, undercutting the claim that the 2009 SMA was factually mistaken. The examiner also raised a point about the property's ownership: Rob Tikoyan initially stated he was the sole owner but later acknowledged his wife is also an owner, requiring additional ethics affidavits.

Key Outcomes

• Record Held Open: The hearing examiner kept the record open for the applicant to submit the following documents:
  • LLC ownership documentation and, if applicable, an ethics affidavit for the wife.
  • An overlay of the PG Atlas generalized land use layer showing "residential high" for the neighborhood.
  • Excerpts from the historical case file A-7803 (1970) regarding the rear property.
• No Final Decision: The examiner did not render a decision. The record will close once the requested documents are filed.
• No Opposition: The hearing proceeded without any public opposition noted on the record.