By Coral Gables Gazette staff
A Miami-Dade circuit court judge has scheduled an evidentiary hearing on an emergency motion seeking to block Coral Gables from acting on its planned off-leash dog park at 520 University Drive — one day before the City Commission is scheduled to revisit the zoning change tied to the project.
Circuit Court Judge Joseph Perkins issued the interim order June 20, setting a two-hour, in-person hearing for 2 p.m. July 6 at the Osvaldo N. Soto Miami-Dade Justice Center. The order also requires the city to file a written response by June 30 and directs attorneys for both sides to meet and confer by July 2 in a good-faith effort to narrow or resolve the issues before the hearing.
The order does not decide whether an injunction should issue or whether the city acted lawfully. It sets the schedule for the court to hear evidence and argument before the commission’s scheduled July 7 consideration of the ordinance amendment.
The emergency motion
The University Green Neighbors Association and resident Jose Val Cohen filed the emergency motion for a temporary injunction June 15 through the law firm Homer Bonner Jacobs Ortiz. The motion asks the court to bar the city from taking any action under Resolution 2025-452 — the November 2025 measure authorizing the dog park — and from proceeding with development at the property.
The filing sharpens a conflict that has been moving on two tracks simultaneously. While the underlying lawsuit has been working through circuit court since February, the city has been advancing an amendment to a 1972 ordinance that restricts the parcel to overflow parking — the very restriction the neighbors say legally bars the dog park. The commission approved that amendment on first reading June 2 by a 3-2 vote, with a second reading scheduled for July 7.
The plaintiffs contend the city is racing to remove the obstacle before a court can rule on whether the underlying resolution was legal in the first place. That characterization is the plaintiffs’ assertion; the city disputes it.
What each side is arguing
The plaintiffs advance several claims for voiding the resolution. They argue it was an ordinance in substance and therefore required the public notice and hearing procedures Florida law reserves for zoning changes. They allege a Sunshine Law violation in the notice given before the November 2025 commission vote. They invoke the 1972 ordinance, which rezoned the parcel for overflow parking and contains a reverter provision that returns the land to single-family use when that parking use ends. They also argue county and city codes bar standalone off-leash dog parks, and that construction would cause irreparable harm to the site’s mature trees, vegetation and wildlife.
The plaintiffs have also pressed three sharper allegations: that Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson, the resolution’s sponsor, should have recused herself but declined; that they suspect the city may have improperly polled Planning and Zoning Board members before a May 20 hearing; and that the city waived customary grace periods so the ordinance amendment would take effect immediately. Each is the plaintiffs’ assertion. The city has not addressed them point by point in court filings.
City Attorney Cristina Suárez said in a written statement to the Gazette that the city disputes the claims and allegations asserted by the plaintiffs. The city’s filings argue that Resolution 2025-452 is a true resolution — a directive to staff to plan a privately funded project — and therefore not subject to the notice rules applicable to zoning ordinances. The city contends the 1972 reverter clause is not self-executing and cannot bypass the formal procedures required to change zoning, which is why it is now amending the ordinance through that process. On the Sunshine Law claim, the city argues that a January 13 commission meeting — at which the plaintiffs appeared and presented a petition of more than 100 signatures — constituted independent final action that cured any earlier procedural defect.
The commission’s June 2 vote drew a sharp split. A motion by Commissioner Melissa Castro to defer the ordinance amendment until the litigation is resolved failed 2-3 before the amendment passed on the same vote, with Castro and Commissioner Ariel Fernandez opposed. Anderson framed the amendment as the process the neighbors had asked for. Suárez told commissioners the litigation had cost the city $10,763 in outside legal fees since March.
What comes next
The July 6 hearing could determine whether a temporary injunction takes effect before the commission’s scheduled July 7 consideration of the ordinance amendment. The plaintiffs have sought relief on or before that date.
The city’s written response to the emergency motion is due June 30. Attorneys for both sides must meet and confer by July 2 and file a certificate identifying any issues narrowed, resolved or still remaining.
The city’s motions to dismiss the underlying case and to stay discovery are separately set for hearing Aug. 3. Trial in the underlying case is scheduled for December.
The dispute dates to the commission’s November 2025 approval of the dog park and has since moved through public meetings, neighborhood opposition and circuit court filings.
This Post Has 16 Comments
Everyone needs to see this in real time. Here we have a parcel of land that has been used by the library and all residents for over- flow parking during elections and special events. Then comes King Lago, the autocratic disrespectful Mayor of Coral Gables who has decided that we need another dog park. So he decides on land next to homes that the neighbors are totally against. He does not listen to them as he knows best. He does not care what they say. He wants a dog park and his puppets do what he says. Unfortunately there is a restriction on the use of the property so the King decides to change the restriction so he can do what he wants with the property. The residents are so upset and against the park they open a law suit against the idea. The king continues his fight to do what he wants with no regard for the people of our community. This has gotten out of hand and he is trying to backdoor change restrictions before the hearing to get his way. Do you people see how horrible this man is? What he wants over the residents who own million dollar homes in a residential area who pay his salary. In my life I never thought I would see such a horrible lowdown politician treat his residents the way Lago treats the people of Coral Gables. I do not live near the site but I know how I feel about my immediate neighborhood and what I have invested in my home. I pray the residents win and I pray we can get rid of Lago, Anderson and Lara. Their arrogance will only continue to control our City the way they want, not what we want. The Garden, Fritz and Frantz, the Hub, the money for the circle, and many more issues are being controlled by a dictator who should be recalled. Lago has turned this City into a circus with clowns protecting his decisions.
Parking? For special events and elections that seldomly happen? Really? That’s the highest and best use? I live near the site and dogs and families would use this every day.
No, for a dog park.
We need parking spaces.
No one parks on that lot. Cars aren’t crossing the sidewalk to park in that grass. People will still be able to park in the swale as they do now.
The residents in the vicinity of this supposedly (bark park) should “always” have the final vote on whether they want it or not, unfortunately this is not the case under our current administration. Property values are going to go down in the area because of this..
Dogs may be man’s best friend, but education is a precious treasure. It is obvious that the land in question is sorely needed for library visitors of all ages, as well as for voting. Many times, as I passed the library, cars were jam parked across the street on the youth center property, as well as on the site our mayor proposes be turned over to dogs, instead of those seeking education. In fact, a few times I was not able to park, so had to return home without stepping foot in our house of learning.
The land is not used daily for library visitors. They park on the swale, on the other side of the sidewalk.
I have never been so disgusted at an administration as I am about Mayor Lago’s band of thrives. For residents to go as far as.to have to lodge a lawsuit against our city is more than disgraceful. If there is this much push-back for the dog park, the city should gracefully say they support the residents, and back down from the idea. Also the land is needed for library functions, it is not idle. For this elected official to be so arrogant against the residents shames everything about him. Lago and his 2 sidekicks should be ashamed of their behavior and need to be banned from any political dealings when their term comes due. Better yet, recall them out of our city. THEY WORK FOR US, they have no right to dictate what we want or need.
“It’s not relevant.”
~Rhonda Anderson
“Move, get a petition, sue ’em.”
~Chip Withers
Surprise again.
No dog park!
signed coral gables resident
FULL support of the dog park, and I live right across the street!
2ux6mv
Will people actually walk far enough to utilize this dog park? Will people load their dogs in the car and bring them to the dog park? Why is it every green spot needs to be developed into something? Can’t it just be left as “green space?” I think people in the neighborhood probably walk their dogs here in this greenspace already. Isn’t it best to just leave it as it is so cars can park there when necessary? Won’t this satisfy everyone?
Such good questions, such logical assumptions.
Wish you were on the city commission where common sense, integrity and respect for the city and its residents is in short supply.
We all know the right thing to do, the hard part is doing it.
Dog parks are still green spaces to be enjoyed by all residents. The opposition to this dog park is wildly bonkers.
Dog parks are fenced areas which restrict adults and children who don’t have dogs, or don’t take their dogs to dog parks, from enjoying.
Open, unfenced green spaces are just as described. Open to anyone who wants to enjoy them.
“Wildly bonkers” is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. But you are basing your opinion on skewed facts.