Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some municipalities or HOAs prohibit decks (and windows, depending on design and height) to overlook directly over their neighbors if closer than a certain distance to the property line would be my guess. That and constructing a rooftop deck on an existing or new structure to code with maximum height regulations for a structure, egress, guardrail design as well as dead/live load and shear engineering requirements would be difficult at best in most circumstances. I’d be willing to bet most of the existing examples are considered non-conforming and are woefully inadequate even if charming.
The question is not about HOAs which appear to often have a fondness for arbitrary rule making but about laws that would forbid such amenities. Anything you mention in regard to building safety would be included in the building code and is no reason to ban such structures entirely which, in many cases, require nothing more than providing access and a surface atop a flat roof with appropriate railings. I do not envision rickety structures atop pitched roofs.
I would like to see the poster stating such laws exist respond to let us know why those regulations were put in place.
The question is not about HOAs which appear to often have a fondness for arbitrary rule making but about laws that would forbid such amenities. Anything you mention in regard to building safety would be included in the building code and is no reason to ban such structures entirely which, in many cases, require nothing more than providing access and a surface atop a flat roof with appropriate railings. I do not envision rickety structures atop pitched roofs.
I would like to see the poster stating such laws exist respond to let us know why those regulations were put in place.
The reason I've heard, is that roof decks would exceed the maximum height restrictions, but I'm not sure if that's the only reason. In any case, properties that already have a roof deck can sometimes fetch a premium.
Wood rot takes about 5-10 years. Any house over 10 years can have rotten wood. It's a lot more likely, if a house is 50-150 years old, that whatever conditions would have caused rotting to long since have been corrected.
Last I looked, you're supposed to keep wood painted, and you're supposed to maintain proper drainage around the house, and you're supposed to treat for termites, and you're supposed to fix leaks. If you don't do that, you need to be living in an apartment, because a new house will go down fast if you don't take care of it.
I love old homes. If I were younger and had the means, I would definitely buy an old Victorian. Newer homes just cannot compare in character. What I do hate to see are older homes that have been "modernized" to the point where they have lost all the character of what was intended when the house was built.
The reason I've heard, is that roof decks would exceed the maximum height restrictions, but I'm not sure if that's the only reason. In any case, properties that already have a roof deck can sometimes fetch a premium.
Well, maximum height requirements are something entirely different and are, of themselves, reasonable within a zoning plan. I can't imagine why banning rooftop decks that meet all other building code and zoning regulations would be in the public interest.
Patch, with little of its content professionally sourced, has not developed a reputation for accuracy in what it does publish although I would not dispute in the slightest that waterview properties demand a premium.
Last edited by kokonutty; 07-30-2021 at 01:04 AM..
Well, maximum height requirements are something entirely different and are, of themselves, reasonable within a zoning plan. I can't imagine why banning rooftop decks that meet all other building code and zoning regulations would be in the public interest.
Patch, with little of its content professionally sourced, has not developed a reputation for accuracy in what it does publish although I would not dispute in the slightest that waterview properties demand a premium.
I assume it is due to privacy issues. If you go through the trouble of putting up a fence and trees/shrubs so someone can’t look in your hard and suddenly someone puts a rooftop deck in, none of those features are going to be at all helpful.
What kind of house you buy might depend on how long you plan to live there. If you are planning on staying somewhere long term you might feel it's worth the time and cost. If you will be moving in a few years getting involved in serious projects would be pointless.
Depends on how much money you have to throw at it and how long you plan on living in it. Personally I wouldn't in this economy - you just can't find good people to do the work on it that I would want to do. I'll sooner buy a new construction condo with all the modern day bells and whistles than a house older than 10 years. Convenience and maintenance-free come first, and I don't care about outdoor space.
I assume it is due to privacy issues. If you go through the trouble of putting up a fence and trees/shrubs so someone can’t look in your hard and suddenly someone puts a rooftop deck in, none of those features are going to be at all helpful.
They aren't helpful if any of your neighbors have second story windows overlooking your yard, either, but unfortunately there's not much you can do about that...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.