By Coral Gables Gazette staff
A court motion to dismiss a lawsuit against a planned dog park at 520 University Drive, across from the Coral Gables Branch Library, has been scheduled to be heard Aug. 3.
In the meantime, the city is continuing to examine opposition and support for the park, with the city’s Parks Advisory Board walking members through an analysis of public feedback during its May 14 meeting.
The Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court set the date for the city’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought earlier this year by the University Green Neighbors Association, whose members argue the city approved plans for the dog park without proper notice or input from nearby residents. The group also contends the city is violating zoning regulations and other laws with the proposed project.
At this week’s board meeting, Community Recreation Director Fred Couceyro presented information gathered through emails, petitions and attendance at a February community meeting regarding the proposal.
356 comments, 248 in support — but the numbers are disputed
According to Couceyro, the city documented 356 total public comments or instances of participation connected to the proposal. Of those, 248 expressed support for the dog park, while 101 expressed opposition. Another seven comments were considered neutral and 16 attendees at the public meeting could not be categorized because they did not publicly state a position.
“Based on what I’m seeing, you know, on the support — on what we got in terms of support, the support’s in favor of it,” Couceyro told the board.
He said most participants were Coral Gables residents, with only 11 identified as residents of the City of Miami.
Couceyro also broke down the themes raised by both supporters and opponents. Supporters frequently cited the need for more dog park amenities throughout the city and argued the University Drive location already sits in an active civic area near the library and youth center.
Opponents, meanwhile, raised concerns about traffic, parking, noise, impacts on adjacent homes, loss of green space and wildlife habitat, and a preference for alternative locations.
“The majority of people that are close by, they’re not in favor,” Couceyro said. “They think it affects their quality of life, they don’t want it there.”
Still, he noted that residents farther from the immediate area tended to support the proposal, leading several board members to characterize the conflict as a classic “not in my backyard,” or NIMBY, dispute.
Nearby residents oppose; citywide supporters push back
Board member Maite Halley cautioned against drawing too strong a conclusion from the raw numbers, arguing the petitions supporting the dog park were not directly comparable to petitions opposing the specific University Drive site.
Halley noted that the petition supporting the project was titled “Petition to the City of Coral Gables City Commission in support of an off-leash dog park” and did not specify 520 University Drive.
“At no point did it say, are you in favor of dog parks at 520,” Halley said. “I think that makes a big difference.”
She argued many residents may generally support dog parks citywide while opposing one next to their homes.
“You’re comparing apples and oranges,” Halley said. “Sure, everybody’s in support in general, of all these good things … but when you get down to parsing to how exactly it’s going to be delivered, and where it might [go], and how it impacts budgets … I think it’s important.”
Couceyro acknowledged the distinction and said the city would clarify the wording differences when presenting findings to the City Commission.
“By virtue of what the context of the petition is, it’s not scientifically valid,” he said. “It’s not a poll, it’s not a research tool. It’s a petition.”
Board declines to take a position as commission awaits findings
The discussion also turned to whether the Parks Advisory Board itself should formally take a position on the proposed dog park.
Board member Richard Smit asked directly, “Is the board going to take a position? Can we take a position for or against?”
Couceyro appeared hesitant, noting the issue remains in flux because of the pending lawsuit, zoning questions and unresolved funding discussions.
“I’m not so sure that we’re done with the public input process,” he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s additional questions.”
He added that ultimate authority rests with the City Commission.
“The decision is going to be made up there, whether it gets made in June, July or August,” Couceyro said. “I think it’s best for the commission to make that decision.”
The commission had already indicated earlier this year that it intended to move forward with plans for the dog park and was not reconsidering the concept itself, though commissioners said they remained open to public feedback on the design and operation of the facility. The lawsuit followed shortly afterward.
Couceyro said that from a parks planning perspective, the city still sees a need for additional dog parks.
“Should we need more dog parks? Yes, we’ve seen need for it,” he said. “All the signs point towards moving forward.”
Still, he acknowledged concerns from nearby residents would likely continue shaping the conversation.
“No one likes the effect that’s next to their home and what they’re used to,” Couceyro said. “You’re always going to have that reaction.”
Coral Gables has more dog parks per capita in a city with enough green space where you don’t need them. Dog parks are for neighborhoods without backyards or green spaces not Coral Gables!! Stop fenced áreas they take away from the natural charm and character of our city! Do we really have to aestheticize every inch of grass in this city???? What are we becoming?
Agreed!
100% agree. For example, especially given its large footprint, the dog park at Salvadore Park is hardly used – and Anderson made such a big deal out of it when it opened, as though it were a vitally necessary amenity. There are a couple of more reasonably sized lots near the proposed new dog park, just to the west, but as far as I know, these have been disregarded as potential compromises. The little neighborhood pocket parks scattered around town have transformed formerly pleasant, open, public green spaces into fenced-in, synthetic-surfaced, over-amenitized heat islands with little remaining natural grass, populated by randomly placed carved stones and boulders, Little Free Libraries with books baking in the sun / disintegrating behind glass doors, and unbearably scorching hot benches on which you can’t sit during most hours of the day. The little water feature underneath the small footbridge in the micro-park in front of the Venitian Pool has NEVER had water in it the entire time that it’s been open. What’s going on with this town? Dreary, pathetic and sad.
AGREED!
The dog park scenerio will be a good test for the construction of safe transportation infrastructure. Past practice gave decision making power to the residents immediately adjacent to the project despite broader regional support by people who would use it. It will define priorities- safety or social activities?
According to the article, Couceyro mentioned “unresolved funding issues.” Really? When the Commission’s November 18 dog park resolution was voted on without proper neighborhood notification nor input, the three Commissioners were told (and it was included in the Resolution as a condition) that the off-leash dog park would be paid for through private donations. By the City’s own estimates, this proposed 40,000 square foot bark park will cost more than $250,000 not including the added dog water fountains, drainage, and ongoing maintenance and operational costs. Fix our sidewalks so people — old and young— don’t trip and fall and stop forcing a bark park where neighbors don’t want it.
While the debate over the $250,000 price tag for the 520 University Drive site continues, does anyone know if the city is looking into public-private partnerships or international sponsorship deals to cover these costs? I was reading about how major operators like GuiadeBplayArgentina.com are expanding their presence and regulatory compliance in 2026, and it made me wonder if Coral Gables has considered similar corporate tax revenues or grants from the digital entertainment sector to fund local amenities without hitting the residents’ pockets? It seems like a more sustainable way to fix our sidewalks and build the park simultaneously.
The Coral Gables residents near and around University Drive “DO NOT WANT A DOG PARK”. The Chewy Dog Park is less than HALF MILE away. The residents pay high taxes for GREEN SPACE for their children. Commissioners need to stop forcing stupid and expensive ideas. Including getting SUED.
Thank you Gazette for your continued coverage on this issue. I would respectfully request that you consider revising the headline-it says the neighborhood is divided which is inaccurate. We are united. The larger community is in disagreement. Thank you.
I think that the city should consider putting a pickle ball center on that land instead of a dog park. It would be a solid addition to the city judging by the popularity It has right there at the Youth Center.
The residents closest to this proposed ( Bark park) should ultimately have the last say on weather they want it or not. As i see itcan they “Don’t want it, period”…
Dog parks are not in people’s backyards! Period!
This is ridiculous!
Do the dog park in the grassy area in front of of the Youth Center – there’s plenty of grass and it doesn’t affect anyone! Why this is even a discussion is beyond me. What a waste of time & energy!
Do better Mayor, Vice Mayor & Commissioners in support of this!
It’s true – the new and quite beautiful dog park on Ponce is 1/2 mile away. There’s no need to concentrate all the dog parks.
I took my dog to chewy park. He was not impressed. No one asked the dogs if fake grass is awesome for them . Let the dogs run on real grass and a park with no fence, if they really cared about the dogs.
Page 364 of the 25-26 City Budget states that the City’s goal is to meet the top-ten benchmark City National standard for dog parks by 2025. Page 365 defines that goal as 2 dog parks per 50,000 residents. We currently have 5 dog parks which are Salvador Dog Park, Chewy Park, Villa Valencia Park, Chapman Field Park and Matheson Hammock Park. We have 27 pet-friendly parks listed on the Coral Gables website. We have more dog parks per capita than the #1 city in the U.S. (Boise, Idaho with 7.1 parks per 100,000 residents). If we have satisfied our goal, why are we building more dog parks? I live near Salvador Dog Park – there is not much use of the dog park. We do not need to build more UNUSED DOG PARKS.
2026 City revenue is down per a Coral Gables Gazette analysis published on May 4. Page 364 of the Budget says that the City has already spent over $900,000 building and maintaining dog parks. The City annually spends $150,000 for dog parks. And that is before the City’s legal fees to defend this improper dog park. Why does the City spend so much to litigate against residents? The City’s losing WAWA litigation cost $500,000. Mayor Lago wants to start more frivolous litigation against the Coral Gables War Memorial Youth Center Association, Inc. The City is also litigating against the University Green Neighbors rather than seeking a resident resolution! The current regime wastes so much money. We should vote on a referendum that reduces the salary of elected officials who cause the City to litigate frivolous issues – that would provide accountability!
I’m not sure that characterizing the neighborhood as “divided” is accurate in any possible way!
There were a couple of residents who spoke in support of dog parks at the February community meeting. One stated she doesn’t even own dogs but it’s a place to meet people(!!!), and another seemed to be supportive, although he wouldn’t bring his dog to a dog park, and then cautioned the neighbors by suggesting we visit Salvadore Park to see what the end result would be for our neighborhood if the bark park were allowed to be built. It turned out to be a cautionary tale, not a favorable report. Neither of those residents live in the neighborhood.
However, many more neighbors in the immediate area spoke out clearly, firmly, and in a very UNITED way, against having this bark park placed at 520 University Drive.
No divided opinions. The neighborhood (who should have been consulted from the get-go, but wasn’t) is united in our opposition to this bark park.
The Salvatore Dog Park is little used because it’s a SAND PIT, and has no separation for little dogs and big dogs.
Try taking your dogs there and then getting them into the car or house with sand all over their feet, or yours, when you step into it clean up. Also try putting your little 10 lb dog in with a playful German Shepard and see how long that lasts, while you sit on edge of one of the few benches waiting for an unintended accident to happen.
Real dog parks are required to have separate areas and entrances for dogs over and under 25 lbs, and water available on each side. I bet a grassy area instead of a sand pit should see usage hugely increase, including mine.
And speaking of useless spaces and huge waste of money, the “peaceful” little triangle surrounded by 3 streets and across from the Venetian pool has ZERO use. Who wants to sit there and quietly read books or ponder the wonders of the universe with so much traffic and noise on all sides? And, yes, zero water trickling through the fake brook with the fake little bridge!
People, in case you haven’t figured it out, dog parks are as much for dog owners as they are for dogs. NIMBYs will always be NIMBYs, no matter what the cause. Do you really think they would welcome a children’s playground instead??? You bet not… for all the same reasons, too much noise, traffic, loss of privacy, real estate depreciation, blah, blah, blah. It would be the exact same play book.
Let’s fix the dog parks we have and build more for our community!
The fact that Lago, Anderson. And Lara are pushing something that is so heated should show everyone how these 3 need to be removed from our city. The fact that they will not listen to the area residents shows how autocratic, disrespectful and out of line these 3 are to the residents. I am at the end of my rope with these 3, their voting block and their pathetic leadership in our city. They need to be kicked out of our city. No to a dog park next to homes !!!
The city should consider using that land for pickle ball courts. It’s become a popular recreational activity judging by the amount of residents going to the CG Youth Center to play on the basketball courts which have absolutely no shade.
And how do you silence the DINK noise? Try again.
You don’t. If noise is the problem, then make it a snake garden. No dog park, no children’s playground, no exercise stations, nothing that makes an iota of sound right? Incredible the ME-A-ME attitude.
The reality is that the property is protected by a reverter clause which states that if the land is no longer needed for overflow parking, it reverts back to single-family zoning, which is what it was before the Ordinance was adopted in 1972. No dog park, no pickleball, (no snake park!) but a return to single-family housing, which is what the rest of the residential neighborhood is zoned for.