Sunday, July 26, 2026

Coral Gables advances zoning change for University Drive dog park despite neighborhood opposition

  • NEWS
Land-use and zoning maps showing the 520 University Drive property outlined near University Drive, Riviera Drive and Cadima Avenue in Coral Gables.
City land-use and zoning maps show the 520 University Drive property near the Coral Gables Library and Youth Center. Commissioners voted 3-2 on first reading to advance a zoning amendment that would remove older overflow-parking restrictions tied to the site while preserving park-like conditions and landscaping requirements. (City of Coral Gables)

By Coral Gables Gazette staff

Despite opposition from a multitude of residents who live closest to the site, the Coral Gables City Commission voted June 3 to advance a key zoning change needed to keep plans for a proposed dog park at 520 University Drive moving forward.

A 3-2 vote moves the ordinance forward

The commission approved the ordinance on first reading by a 3-2 vote, with Mayor Vince Lago, Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson and Commissioner Richard Lara voting in favor, while Commissioners Melissa Castro and Ariel Fernandez voted against.

A 1972 zoning condition becomes central

The ordinance amends conditions attached to the property since 1972, when the city rezoned two parcels near the Coral Gables Library and Youth Center from single-family residential to Special Use zoning.

Planning and Zoning Director Jennifer Garcia outlined the property’s history during the hearing, including conditions set on the property. Among them were that zoning allowed the site to be used as overflow parking for the library and youth center, required it to remain in a park-like condition, restricted access from University Drive, and included a reverter clause requiring the property to return to single-family zoning if overflow parking was no longer needed.

The proposed amendment would remove the requirement that the property be used solely for overflow parking while eliminating the reverter clause. Other protections, including preserving the site in a park-like manner and maintaining trees and landscaping, would remain in place.

Neighbors say the change validates their lawsuit

The zoning change has become a central issue in an ongoing lawsuit filed by residents opposed to the proposed 40,000-square-foot dog park.

Speaker after speaker from the University Green Neighbors Association argued that the city could not legally move forward with a dog park without first changing the zoning conditions, a point they say validates their legal challenge.

“Today’s item proves (the original) ordinance remains in effect and that you cannot build a dog park on the property without changing that ordinance,” resident Lino Fernandez told commissioners. He also mentioned the lack of notice from the city for the original item proposing the dog park in November in several quoted statements by city officials from that meeting, including City Manager Peter Iglesias telling residents that because the “property was already a park, no notice was needed to transition the park to another park use.”

Opponents repeatedly argued that the property serves an important function as overflow parking for the heavily used Coral Gables Library and nearby Youth Center. Residents cited library attendance figures, early voting turnout and special events as evidence that the grass lot remains necessary.

Others warned about increased traffic, noise, sanitation concerns and declining property values. Several residents described the site as a peaceful green space that acts as a buffer between public facilities and surrounding homes.

Attorney Sylvia King, who is assisting residents in the lawsuit, argued the proposed amendments constitute illegal spot zoning and urged commissioners to delay action until the litigation is resolved.

“The commission shouldn’t decide anything until we get answers to the discovery and until the lawsuit is resolved,” King said. She also argued that Anderson should recuse herself from the vote, based on past statements and actions – a notion City Attorney Cristina Suarez contested.

Supporters point to citywide demand

Only a couple of speakers supported the measure. Mary Powell, who lives outside the immediate neighborhood, argued support for the dog park extends citywide and cited petitions backing the project, including the one she submitted to the city last year.

“I presented petition signatures to the commission last November, and that support has only grown,” she said, although that petition did not specify the location of the proposed dog park on University Drive. Powell said city reviews had concluded the property was not needed for overflow parking and urged commissioners to continue moving forward.

Commissioners split over process and legality

The legal implications of the zoning amendment became a focus of commission debate. Commissioner Castro questioned whether the city was effectively addressing one of the lawsuit’s claims before the case is resolved.

The city attorney said the ordinance was a necessary procedural step regardless of the project’s future.

“If this process concludes, then they would not be able to say the city didn’t address this issue,” Suarez said. “If the city is moving forward with the dog park or not moving forward, we’ve got to figure that out, and this is one of the things that needs to be addressed as part of that process.”

Commissioner Fernandez remained unconvinced.

“Nowhere does it say it can be used as a park,” Fernandez said, referring to the 1972 ordinance. “It is very clear. It is in black and white, and I am a no.”

Anderson countered that the city was now following the process critics had demanded.

“This is the process that’s required,” Anderson said. “The reason for the lawsuit is to have the process followed. We’re following the process.”

The vote does not authorize construction of a dog park, but it removes one of the major zoning obstacles standing in the way. A second reading will still be required before the ordinance becomes final.

This Post Has 44 Comments

  1. Lynn Guarch-Pardo June 4, 2026 Reply

    The city’s proposed removal of Ordinance 1952’s reverter clause is being overshadowed by other issues, but in reality it is an extremely important safeguard intended to protect that property and the surrounding neighborhood. If the property is no longer needed for overflow parking, then it reverts back to its original single-family residential zoning. The intention of the commission in 1972 was to ensure the property would never be used for an incompatible development. Removing that protective reverter clause is absolutely detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Without that important, protective reverter clause, there is no telling what the commission would put there. Right now their stated intention is to place a bark park in the adjoining neighbors backyards. If they get away with this at 520 University, then any open green space is fair game! The next one may be in your backyard.

  2. Lynn Guarch-Pardo June 5, 2026 Reply

    Even more disturbing on a personal level is that the majority on the commission doesn’t care about the negative effects a dog park would have on the surrounding homeowners’ property value and quality of life. They just don’t care about the residents.

  3. William Curtin June 5, 2026 Reply

    Is the the dog park a trojan horse

    1. Lynn Guarch-Pardo June 5, 2026 Reply

      Could be, Mr. Curtin.
      Many think that removing the reverter clause is part of a larger plan…and this dog park is just a smoke screen.

  4. Kandace June 5, 2026 Reply

    Why is the Commission so obsessed with spending money to create this new “dog park” when our existing parks need repairs (i. e. Catalonia Park / Turtle Park).
    The mat flooring has been a trip hazard for years and nothing is ever done. I’m sure it will be urgent one day when some child or senior gets badly injured and sues the City though. They’re going to say we don’t have the money to fix it, but there’s funding for a new dog park?! There’s not even a cone to warn people! I almost ate the metal bench the other day! Just unbelievable!

  5. Linda Chapin June 5, 2026 Reply

    If people come to the dog park by car, where will they park? I cannot park at the Youth Center midaftertnoons or Saturdays because of the youth programs so I can’t work out at those times. To use the library I most often must park the Youth Center lot because the library parking lot is inadequate.
    The dog park must include it’s own parking space but I’d rather we deal with existing needs first.

  6. Irwin June 5, 2026 Reply

    Fixing the roads and paying down our debt is more important than another dog park. What are we? Children with our parent’s AMEX?

  7. MG June 5, 2026 Reply

    Obviously, the commission wants to go ahead with this unneeded dog park, to them it doesn’t matter whether the c.g.residents mostly affected by this are ignored. Why would someone who lives far away from this area have the right to win this thing.. The commission is so dysfunctional it’s ridiculous, we as residents need to be heard !!!!

    1. Andrew June 5, 2026 Reply

      I haven’t been following this case closely, but from the little I’ve read, it seems the neighbors created a huge fuss over a simple dog park that didn’t even involve any permanent construction. They demanded that the reverter clause be voted on before anything could be done in order to make it “legal,” and now it appears to have backfired on them.

      The city followed their demands and voted to remove the reverter clause, which now seems to give them a clear path to do whatever they want with the property in the future, not only a friendly green dog park. That’s what happens when you create a problem where there really wasn’t one to begin with.

      1. Lynn Guarch-Pardo June 5, 2026 Reply

        Andrew…you are absolutely mistaken, and it’s very obvious you haven’t been following this case closely.
        1. The proposed dog park absolutely involves permanent construction, which begins with fenced areas throughout and around the entire property.
        2. The neighborhood association did not “demand” any “vote” on the reverter clause. The reverter clause PROHIBITS the creation of a dog park or anything else except for single-family homes on that property, if it no longer needs to be used for overflow parking.
        3. The property is only zoned for overflow parking for the Library and Youth Center, and is a lovely open green space which can be enjoyed by anyone wishing to do so.
        4. You are making assumptions and accusations without understanding the real issues.
        5. All of this was initiated by the city without any notice to the residents who live in the immediate area, which is required when a change of zoning is proposed. So the “legal” process as required by the city, was circumvented “illegally” by the city itself.

  9. Tom Wells June 5, 2026 Reply

    Hypocrisy continues with Mayor Lago and his voting bloc as evidenced by the desire to build another low use dog park. The green space at 520 University is required to be “kept in a park-like manner and the trees and foliage on the said lots shall be preserved in their present state as much as is feasible” with “the intention . . . that the said lots should be used only for overflow parking from the Youth Center and the Library.” This has been the dedicated use for the past 74 years! City Code Section 42-38 specifically prohibits off-leash dogs in a Coral Gables park. At the Nov. 18th meeting, Lago’s bloc passed Resolution 2025-452 that “directs City staff [to] move forward with the development of a dog park located at 520 University Drive.” At both the Dec. 17 and June 2 meetings, Lago’s bloc refused to delay the dog park decision to engage in resident discussion. Although Lago proclaimed that he would not defer a vote “to kick the can down the road”, that is exactly what he did on May 5 and May 20 by refusing to vote to allow the World Cup Watch Party that we have had for the last 24 years at Fritz & Franz. Anderson claims to be for a “representative democracy” but relies on a petition that never included the dog park location at 520 University, only told her disciples about the Nov. 18th meeting to approve the dog park and refuses to defer the dog park decision prior to engaging in any representative democracy – which caused residents to sue the City. The City poll sent on May 13th could have included a question about the dog park instead of annexing Little Gables – but it did not. And Lara wants Castro to refer to him as a Commissioner but is OK with Lago referring to Castro as “Commissioner ChatGPT”?!? Although the admissions against interest taken by Lago and his voting bloc may affect some elements of Count I of the resident lawsuit, it highlights the Sunshine Law violations of Lago’s voting bloc in Count II which allow Governor DeSantis to remove the bloc. Lago needs to spend less time talking about his 5 a.m. squat workout (another crazy revelation) and act like an adult mayor.

  10. Mike Ewald June 5, 2026 Reply

    Health, safety and welfare in the city not-so-beautiful-after-all.

    Don’t get in their way.

    No one’s safe.

  11. Pat Keon June 5, 2026 Reply

    The limited open public green space for the benefit of residents, in a built-out city, should remain open public green space. There is no justification for fencing off this space for the benefit of pets, especially in a single-family neighborhood with back yards where pets can run free, I’ve had both pets and children. We have playgrounds and community spaces where we hope our children learn social skills as they go to school, grow up, go to work and form families of their own, and lead us forward in the generations to come. As much as we love our pets they really just need to learn to socialize with their human family.
    Maybe the real need is for pet owners to have an opportunity to socialize, and the Recreation Dept. should work on that instead.

  12. Lisa DeTournay June 7, 2026 Reply

    I have addressed the City Commission multiple times in the last 5 years regarding multiple issues in which the majority of CG residents who would be affected by specific proposed projects have voiced their strong opposition. I constantly see that I have been wasting my time since the current triumvirate consistently votes against these residents. In this particular debacle, Mayor Vince Lago, Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson (sponsor of this dog park) and Commissioner Richard Lara voted in favor, while Commissioners Melissa Castro and Ariel Fernandez voted against. The first three of you should be ashamed for ignoring the residents and, hopefully, be replaced by better people in the next (idiotic to have moved the election date to November) city elections.

Leave a Reply

RECENT STORIES