Board denies Marlowe Charities’ zoning exemption request after lengthy hearing

The City of Knoxville Board of Zoning Appeals on a 3–1 vote denied an appeal by R. Bentley Marlowe and Marlowe Charities seeking a zoning exemption that would treat an internal second unit as an accessory dwelling unit and waive owner‑occupancy and certain separation requirements.

City staff began the hearing by saying federal and state religious‑land‑use laws (RLUIPA and the Tennessee Religious Freedom Restoration Act) require a multi‑step review: whether the activity is religious exercise, whether the claimant sincerely holds the beliefs asserted, whether the zoning regulation imposes a substantial burden, and—if so—whether the government's interest is compelling and the restriction is the least‑restrictive means. Staff said its denial rested partly on life‑safety and code disparities and on factual concerns about the applicant’s organization and past filings. A staff presenter summarized the city’s position: the project looks like a conversion to a duplex that must meet zoning and building separations, the ADU size fraction exceeded the 40 percent ADU threshold as asserted by the city, and there were fire‑safety concerns if separations were waived.

Supporters and the applicant disputed that account. R. Bentley Marlowe described the operation as charitable housing work and told the board he and his nonprofit had spent years providing rental subsidies and related services: “I feel like I'm under inquisition,” Marlowe said during his remarks, and he offered tax records and letters from people the charity says it has helped. Advocate Parker Bartholomew, speaking for the appellant, argued the owner‑occupancy requirement and other limitations can be an unconstitutional burden in some contexts and cited court decisions from other jurisdictions addressing owner‑occupancy and ADU rules.

City staff countered with new evidence and analysis in their packet, noting a period when the entity listing changed on the Tennessee Secretary of State site and presenting examples of market‑rate rents for some properties associated with the same owner. Staff also said the property at issue was built in 2022–24 on a conforming lot and that the conversion path to lawful duplex or middle‑housing treatment would require building‑code fire separations or other structural changes—an option the staff said remains available but more costly.

Board members debated both the legal framework and the factual record. Several members said that, while they were sympathetic to the applicant’s stated charitable mission, the zoning code and building‑safety rules provide a path for conversions (for example, through middle‑housing review or structural modifications) and that the record did not show the denial created the kind of insurmountable, unique burden that RLUIPA requires be resolved in favor of a religious exemption. One member raised concerns about the corporate structure—separate for‑profit entities holding property while the charity provides services—and said that raised credibility questions for this application. Another member said prior city determinations (including a different ADU exemption considered earlier by staff) could be informative but stressed each appeal must be decided on its own facts.

When the board took a vote on the appeal, the motion to deny the appeal carried 3–1. The board’s decision upholds the zoning administrator’s determination and leaves available the applicant’s administrative and judicial appeals; staff noted an administrative appeal route to Knoxville City Council and then to the courts.

The BZA’s action does not change building‑code review rights; staff said construction‑code exemptions or disputes would be heard separately by the Construction Appeals Board, if pursued. The board adjourned after finishing remaining agenda business.