CAMBRIDGE— Susan Ward-Dehkes, who lives on Joe’s Lake Road, recently went to court on a city-issued ticket.

Judge Hunter Anderson heard the case and decided the city of Cambridge should revisit their residential outdoor parking and storage ordinance to make it more clear. The judge said he thought the language was “ambiguous.”

Ward-Dehkes and her family have a crushed concrete driveway to a second garage that does not match the pavement on their original driveway. Ward-Dehkes argued that there is nothing wrong with the parking surface they currently have, and there are many other Cambridge residents just like her.

“This is my yard, and we take pride in our yard, as you can see,” she said referring to a photo on the projector.

The ordinance currently reads “All vehicles parked or stored outdoors shall be on an improved surface equivalent or better than that of the established driveway.”

This basically means any extra parking area in addition to the driveway, must match the driveway— asphalt with asphalt, concrete with concrete. No rock or “crushed” surface is allowed, although council members commented that rocks can look good when nicely landscaped.

Is the city grandfathering in properties from before the ordinance? Not currently, and it wouldn’t be fair for many residents to begin doing so now.

“We’ve been making people make it the same as their driveway,” said Marcia Westover, city planner. “They have paid a significant amount of money doing that.”

The city attorney has said parking is not considered a property right, so he has said no matter when an ordinance on the matter is amended, residents have to comply, said Westover.

“There may be someone last month who complied, and then we talk about grandfathering others in,” said Community Development Director Dave Carlberg. “They will be more upset than anyone and say ‘I just spent $3,000 on concrete.’”

Also, Westover and Carlberg added it would be difficult to enforce the ordinance if some properties are grandfathered in.

“I live in a development, and there’s more foreclosures than not,” Ward-Dehkes said. “Stop and think about the citizens of the town. I agree with the junk and the garbage— something needs to be done about that. But not when it is kept up and looks nice.”

She added it would cost $7,000 for her to add the poured concrete driveway that leads to the residence’s second garage.

“All we were asked to do by the court is to clarify what we mean by the ordinance, but I thought we were clear on the meaning,” said council member Bob Shogren. “Do we want to make the ordinance say what it says already or do we want to redo the ordinance?”

He asked what about the people complying with the ordinance the whole time who hope that their property values will one day go up.

“What would the residents want us to do?” asked council member Lisa Iverson. “I really think what’s fair for citizens is grandfathering in. It’s kind of an unfair challenge for those who can’t afford to comply.”

City Administrator LyndaWoulfe said in comparison to other cities, Cambridge is in the middle; there are some more restrictive and some less restrictive. But one thing is in common.

“A lot of communities have wrestled with this issue,” said Woulfe.

The council plans to clarify the ordinance to reflect its current meaning, not redo it. However, Iverson thought the ordinance should be looked at a little more closely for the sake of citizens’ wallets.

Mayor Marlys Palmer was not present, because of illness. Council member Chris Caulk filled in for her.

The ordinance will go to the planning commission for review and get back to the council for a decision on Monday, March 15 at 6 p.m.