By Coral Gables Gazette staff
Coral Gables is asking a judge to throw out a lawsuit that could block a proposed dog park across the street from the Coral Gables Library — and if the court agrees, design and construction could move forward without the neighbors who oppose it ever getting their day in court.
The city filed its motion to dismiss April 1 in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, arguing that the lawsuit has no legal foundation. Neighbors who live near the proposed site at 520 University Drive filed suit in February, contending the city rushed the project through without following proper procedures and without notifying the people most affected.
The city’s position, in plain terms, is this: what the commission approved in November was not a zoning change — it was an administrative instruction to city staff to begin planning. That distinction matters because zoning changes require public notice, multiple hearings and mailed notification to nearby residents. Administrative resolutions do not. The motion was obtained through court records. The city did not respond to multiple Gazette inquiries over two weeks, and City Attorney Cristina Suárez and Communications Director Martha Pantin did not provide the filing.
What the neighbors are arguing
When reached by the Gazette, the attorney representing the neighbors, Christopher King, said he looked forward to responding to the city’s motion to dismiss, without giving any specifics. Neither King nor members of the University Green Neighbors Association were willing to provide the city’s filing to the Gazette.
The lawsuit was filed by resident Jose Val Cohen and the University Green Neighbors Association, a group formed specifically to oppose the project. They argue the city violated state law by approving the park through a resolution rather than an ordinance — bypassing the notice requirements that would have alerted nearby residents before the vote. They also argue that a restriction written into city records in 1972 limits the parcel to overflow parking and requires it to revert to single-family residential zoning if that use ends. A third claim alleges the city violated Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Act by failing to give the public reasonable notice before the November vote.
At a community meeting in February, roughly 50 residents showed up, most of them opposed. Several said they learned about the project only after the commission had already voted. “They didn’t even talk to us,” plaintiff Jose Val said at the time. “They didn’t knock on doors.”
What the city is arguing
The city retained outside counsel from Holland & Knight, including Miami-based partner Annie Gamez, whose practice includes land use, zoning and municipal litigation. The cost of outside counsel has not been disclosed. The city’s motion makes three arguments, any one of which would end the lawsuit if the court accepts it.
First, the city says the November vote was not a zoning change and therefore did not require the notice procedures the neighbors say were skipped. The resolution, approved 3-0 by Mayor Vince Lago, Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson and Commissioner Richard Lara, directed city staff to begin planning a dog park and specified design requirements including a 30-to-50-foot landscape buffer. It did not change the zoning map, create any new regulations or restrict anyone’s use of their property. State law reserves the stricter notice requirements for actions that do those things. The motion cites a 2024 ruling in which a Miami Beach resolution imposing actual permit requirements on residents during Art Basel week was upheld as a resolution — not an ordinance — because it was temporary in character. The Coral Gables resolution, the city argues, imposes no regulation on anyone and goes even further from ordinance territory than the Miami Beach action did.
Second, the city says the November meeting was properly noticed under its standard practice, with the agenda item published five days before the vote. On the Sunshine Act claim specifically, the city argues that even if any procedural irregularity occurred on November 18, it was cured at the January 13, 2026 commission meeting — at which the neighbors appeared, were heard, presented a counter-petition and watched the commission reject a motion to rescind the approval. Under a 1981 Florida Supreme Court decision, public final action taken with full opportunity for input cures technical Sunshine Law violations, provided the later action reflects genuine deliberation rather than rubber-stamping a prior closed decision. The city argues January 13 was the former — and that the neighbors’ own participation that night undermines their claim that the process shut them out.
Third, the city argues the 1972 restriction cannot automatically convert the parcel back to residential zoning. Any change to the city’s zoning map — including a reversion — requires a formal legal process. A conditional clause buried in a half-century-old ordinance cannot bypass that process on its own. And even if the clause were somehow triggered, it would not bar the project: the parcel’s existing Special Use zoning already lists “Parks, City” as a permitted use. No rezoning would be needed in any event.
The city also argues the project is far from a done deal regardless of what the court decides. The concept plan filed with the motion calls for 1,180 linear feet of fencing, 7,500 square feet of artificial turf and 21,350 square feet of natural sod — materials the city estimates will exceed $250,000. Because the park is to be funded entirely by private donations, and because the city’s own policy requires commission approval for any donation over $50,000, a separate public vote must take place before construction can begin. That vote has not been scheduled, and the project carries no funding in the city’s current five-year capital plan.
What comes next
The motion also includes an unusual disclosure: the city certifies that artificial intelligence was used in preparing the filing, with the attorney stating that all facts, legal citations and arguments were independently reviewed and verified.
If the judge dismisses the case, the path to construction clears — subject to those remaining commission votes. If the judge lets the lawsuit proceed, the 1972 restriction and the notice claims move toward full litigation, a process that could take months or longer and would run alongside whatever commission action the project still requires.
This Post Has 16 Comments
There is NO current dog park in resident’s BACKYARDS!!!
This is crazy! Hope the residents win! 🤬
I hope the dog park wins….the land serves no purpose otherwise..its would just be vacant..
And where do you live? Bet it is not your next door neighbor. Selfish
Forcing the city into a lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous and fiscally irresponsible. The proposed 25-foot landscaped buffer, with native plants, is a responsible and appropriate measure that adequately protects nearby neighbors. With proper fencing, dense landscaping, clear operating hours, and good design, the visual and sound impact is minimal. Dog parks are not high-intensity facilities; usage is typically staggered throughout the day, and visits are short in duration. Many successful dog parks operate within residential areas under similar conditions without adverse neighborhood effects.
A thoughtfully designed dog park is a meaningful asset to our community. Coral Gables is known for its walkability, green spaces, and strong neighborhood character. A designated dog park enhances all of those qualities by providing residents with a safe, controlled space to exercise their pets while fostering positive social interaction among neighbors. These spaces are not simply pet amenities — they are community-building assets that contribute to overall quality of life.
The mayor and Anderson/ Lara need to back off. WE SAID NO, NO, NO !!! Anderson, you and Lago can send out as many newsletters as you want. It won’t change how we want nothing to do with you. LISTEN TO US. Oh I forgot. You do what you want and could care less what the residents think. No dog park in a residential area. Totally pathetic leadership.
MM Alhambra,
Back up your “facts” with evidence. You state “Many successful dog parks operate within residential areas under similar conditions without adverse neighborhood effects.” Where? Not in Coral Gables, and not in anyone’s back yard. That open green space is already a community-building asset! Neighbors use it, children use it, dogs use it, and it’s intended purpose is to be for overflow parking, which is also an asset to the community. I’m willing to bet you live nowhere near enough to 520 University to be affected by barking dogs, disgusting smells, or parking problems on your street.
Neighborhoods need dog parks. I personally would like to know why the dog park on Maggiore and Mendez Ave was closed. Now its a meeting club for nannies in the neighborhood. Originally, when the park first opened it was a children’s park with a piece as a dog park. The dog part was abruptly closed. Why didn’t the neighbors get to choose.???
I would not buy a house next to a dog park
I pray the people of this city wins and no dog park is allowed. How dare you place a dog park next to homes in our area. Barking dogs, parking traffic, and area excrement is not appropriate. I bet Lago, Anderson and Lara do not live anywhere near this. YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO US !!! But then you three never listen to the residents of a city and show us disrespect by doing what you want. All your newsletters praising the work you have done is useless. Your autocratic government has earned no support from most of the people in Coral Gables.
I pray the people of this city wins and no dog park is allowed. How dare you place a dog park next to homes in any area. Barking dogs, parking traffic, and area excrement is not appropriate. I bet Lago, Anderson and Lara do not live anywhere near this. YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO US !!! But then you three never listen to the residents of a city and show us disrespect by doing what you want. All your newsletters praising the work you have done is useless. Your autocratic government has earned no support from most of the people in Coral Gables.
Always be cautious when buying property next to City owned land zoned as “Parks”. Whether it’s dogs or children playing, “noise” will be present. Do your due diligence when buying. On the other hand, the grand majority of homeowners within a 1/2 mile radius of the park will actually gain an amenity and therefore increase the marketability of their home by having a dog park in close proximity. Ask any realtor if you dont believe me.
Fix the freaking potholes all over city and stop wasting taxpayer money in elitist pursuits.
You would think that those who live closes to this “bark park” would have priority over approving or disapproving this proposal. This sounds like something they do in 3rd world countries, reminder ” this is a Democratic Country . Obviously those in favor don’t live any where near the proposed “bark park”
to continue on what the previous comment was about. Yes, there are more concerning problems to take care of in the “city beautiful” than to spend 100’s of thousands of dollars on a ridiculous dog park (that few people will use). In example, sidewalk repairs, street paving, traffic, unkempt homes, improving miracle mile, parking, the list goes on and on….
Stop this now, and “Yes property values will go down for those closes to a dog park, ask an informed realtor…
The only reason the City wants a dog park is to please the DEVELOPERS and the TENANTS! The residents of Coral Gables should not have to PAY HIGH TAXES TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCOMING RENTERS! Everyone home in Gables has a yard. NO to the Dog Park with fake turf and a tacky fence design. The children deserve green space over any animal playground that brings issues and crime.
The only reason the City wants a dog park is to please the DEVELOPERS and the TENANTS! The residents of Coral Gables should not have to PAY HIGH TAXES TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCOMING RENTERS! Everyone home in Gables has a yard. NO to the Dog Park with fake turf and a tacky fence design. The children deserve green space over any animal playground that brings issues and crime.