By Coral Gables Gazette staff
A legal challenge to Coral Gables’ zoning change at 520 University Drive has cleared an initial court threshold, with a Miami-Dade circuit judge ordering the city to respond within 30 days to a petition seeking to overturn the change.
Circuit Judge Daryl E. Trawick signed the order Aug. 20 in University Green Neighbors Association, Inc., et al. v. City of Coral Gables, the second pending court case involving the city-owned property where Coral Gables plans to build an off-leash dog park.
The order directs the city to show cause why the petitioners’ request to quash Ordinance 2026-25 should not be granted.
That is a procedural step, not a ruling that the challengers are likely to prevail. Under Florida appellate rules governing certiorari proceedings, a court may order a respondent to answer when a petition demonstrates a preliminary basis for relief rather than deny the petition at the outset. The city will now have an opportunity to defend the ordinance and respond to the allegations.
The order gives Coral Gables 30 days to respond. The 30th day falls on Saturday, Sept. 19, which under Florida’s time-computation rules would ordinarily move the deadline to Monday, Sept. 21, unless the court orders otherwise.
The petition invokes the circuit court’s authority to review the commission’s quasi-judicial zoning decision. University Green Neighbors Association and resident Jose Val Cohen filed it Aug. 6, challenging the ordinance the City Commission adopted 3-2 on July 7.
Court filings show attorneys from Holland & Knight received service in the case, alongside City Attorney Cristina Suárez. The petitioners are represented by Christopher King and Peter Homer of Homer Bonner Jacobs Ortiz & Dimond.
A second legal challenge over the same property
The Aug. 20 order concerns the newer of two ongoing court disputes over 520 University Drive.
Ordinance 2026-25 removed two conditions dating to 1972 that applied specifically to the property: one limiting its use to overflow parking for the Coral Gables Library and War Memorial Youth Center, and another requiring the parcel to revert to single-family zoning if that parking use ended.
The ordinance does not itself approve a dog park. It broadens the allowable uses of 520 University to include a public park while retaining overflow parking as a permitted use.
A City Commission resolution adopted in November 2025 directed city staff to move forward with development of the dog park. That action is the subject of the first lawsuit brought by University Green Neighbors Association and Val Cohen, which remains pending.
The two cases therefore challenge different city actions. The earlier lawsuit attacks the resolution that set the dog park project in motion. The newer case asks a court to overturn the zoning change that expanded what the city may legally do with the property.
Five arguments against the zoning change
The Aug. 6 certiorari petition advances five principal grounds for overturning Ordinance 2026-25.
The petitioners argue that the commission lacked competent substantial evidence to support the change, particularly on parking and traffic; that singling out 520 University while leaving similar restrictions on three neighboring properties amounts to illegal spot zoning; that the change conflicts with the city’s Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map; and that the approval process suffered from notice and procedural defects.
They also contend that Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson should have recused herself from the zoning proceedings because of her earlier involvement in efforts to establish a dog park at the property.
City staff reached different conclusions before the commission vote.
A May 20 Planning and Zoning staff report found that allowing public park use at 520 University was consistent with the property’s existing land-use designation and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also argued that eliminating the automatic reverter to single-family zoning would increase future public participation because any subsequent zoning change would require notice and a hearing rather than occurring automatically.
Parking and traffic have been another point of dispute. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended that the commission review those issues before changing the conditions. City staff subsequently concluded that 520 University was not needed for overflow parking and that a full traffic-impact study was unnecessary.
The petitioners argue that the city’s review fell short of what was needed to support the zoning decision.
A divided commission
The process itself became a point of contention when the ordinance reached the City Commission.
At the June 2 first reading, Commissioner Melissa Castro argued that commissioners should not change the zoning conditions while litigation over the underlying dog park approval remained unresolved.
“This is not a dog park argument. This is a process argument,” Castro said.
Her motion to defer the ordinance, seconded by Commissioner Ariel Fernandez, failed. The commission ultimately adopted Ordinance 2026-25 on second reading July 7 by a 3-2 vote.
Anderson also faced requests from opponents to recuse herself from the proceedings.
She declined, saying the earlier commission action had been intended to begin a design and public-input process rather than constitute final approval of a dog park. Anderson cited survey results showing 71 percent of Coral Gables respondents favored the dog park.
“I’m listening to what the majority wants,” Anderson said, while maintaining that she could remain fair and impartial.
The petitioners argue that the relevant legal standard is not simply whether an official believes she can be impartial, but whether the circumstances would give a reasonable person a well-founded concern that the matter had been prejudged.
The city previously told the Gazette that it followed all required procedures in adopting Ordinance 2026-25. Its response did not separately address the petition’s allegations, including the recusal claim.
What comes next
Coral Gables must now file its response to the certiorari petition. The petitioners will then have an opportunity to reply before the court determines whether Ordinance 2026-25 should stand or be quashed.
The separate lawsuit challenging the November 2025 resolution that launched the dog park process remains pending.
Meanwhile, the city continues moving ahead with planning for the property. City staff are scheduled to present the results of community input on the proposed 520 University dog park concept design to the City Commission on Tuesday.
That leaves the proposed park moving forward on two tracks at once: through City Hall, where its design remains under consideration, and through the courts, where both the decision to pursue the park and the zoning change that would permit it remain under legal challenge.
ENOUGH, ENOUGH, ENOUGH !!! This is totally out of hand and unacceptable how the City of CG is fighting its own residents. I am so disgusted and the 3 autocratic leadership of King Lago, do as I say Anderson and puppet Lara need to be kicked out of our city. The park is next to homes that enjoy their back yards. It’s 25 feet and should be 200. These underhanded 3 are spot zoning and changing the rules to suit their wants. This is not leadership. This is dictatorship just like the other lawsuits against them. Anderson will vote just like Lago and Lara did after their PACs got paid off. I can not see how these 3 have not been removed by ethics because they have no ethics. Lawsuit after lawsuit against the city costing us money and frustrations. I can not stand these disrespectful horrible leaders anymore. Stop this and give our residents peace here and at the Garden. I have never seen a city so deplorable as one run by Lago.
King Lago, puppets Anderson and Lara disgust me. What part of you work for us do you 3 not understand? Don’t you realize you are fighting your own people over a dog park that is not needed? It is needed for the library and for peace in the area. And to underhandedly
Spot zone behind our backs is unacceptable. How low can you 3 go? Same with the other developments you are supporting that are ignoring those who live there. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I personally want you 3 out of our city forever.
Stop spending on unnecessary things! The dog park is a terrible idea and nobody has asked me about it. The people with abutting properties should be the ones that matter. If you have a dog keep it on your property where it can poop and bark on YOUR yard or better yet inside YOUR home. Building this dog park is not a reason to increase my property taxes! Reduce government to only its truly necessary functions and lower my property taxes! Eliminate the wasteful spending on this and other unnecessary parks. Focus on reducing traffic on Bird and Red Road and enforcing the noise ordinance on super loud sports cars and performance vehicles that ram through our city. Traffic tickets would increase revenue for the city!
The majority commission will not listen to any of us. King Lago has spoken. Please vote this narcissist, autocratic, over-blown ego Mayor out of our city next election. He needs to apologize and cancel this unfair park. Out with Anderson and Lara too !!!