By Coral Gables Gazette staff
A week before the City of Coral Gables’ community meeting organized to discuss the future design of a proposed dog park at 520 University Drive across the street from the library, opponents of the park filed a lawsuit against the city to stop the park in its tracks.
The University Green Neighbors Association, Inc., a nonprofit recently formed by nearby neighbors of the park, filed the motion on February 12 in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County.
The 27-page complaint makes numerous allegations against the city and its proposed dog park including that the city has circumvented zoning and ordinance restrictions on the property and purposefully “marginalized the University Residents by keeping them in the dark” about plans for the park because it knew they opposed the park.
The Gables City Commission approved a resolution to move forward with the dog park in November of last year, doing so in front of a packed chamber with proponents of the park. Supporters presented a petition of support for an off-leash dog park with over 200 signatures.
But opponents also allege that those signatures are misleading as the petition itself asked for general support of an off-leash dog park, without specifying where it would be located. The lawsuit also says that none of the signatures come from any residents who live in the immediate area of where the park would be located, and that nobody even bothered coming to them looking for support.
After the immediate neighbors of the proposed park learned of the plans, they reached out to Commissioner Melissa Castro to see if the commission could rescind the previous resolution, but that effort failed earlier this year when the majority of the commission backed their original vote. Instead, commissioners in favor of the dog park — Mayor Vince Lago, Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson and Commissioner Richard Lara — said the proposal was moving forward and encouraged opponents to participate in the design process. The city scheduled a public meeting for 6 p.m. Thursday at the War Memorial Youth Center Theater, 405 University Drive.
City officials said preliminary park designs will be presented at the meeting, and residents will have an opportunity to provide input. Design materials will remain available for public review and comment through March 6.
Plaintiff Jose Val Cohen, who lives directly across the street from the proposed dog park said the University Green residents would attend and participate in the meeting, but that the lawsuit was something separate.
“It’s actually sad that we had to go through this so city and people can hear our voice. It’s crazy,” Val Cohen said. He referred questions about the lawsuit to the attorneys.
Details of the complaint
In the complaint, the association and co-plaintiff seek declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate Resolution No. 2025-452, adopted Nov. 18, 2025, which authorized city staff to develop a stand-alone off-leash dog park on the roughly 40,000-square-foot city-owned parcel. They are asking the court to declare the resolution void and to block any development at the site.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an injunction blocking any construction at the site while the case proceeds.
Central to their argument is a 1972 zoning ordinance that rezoned the property from single-family residential use to a special “S” use limited exclusively to municipal overflow parking for the Coral Gables Library and the War Memorial Youth Center. That ordinance, the lawsuit argues, requires the lot to remain unpaved, maintained in a park-like manner and used only for overflow parking. If no longer needed for that purpose, the property is to revert to single-family residential use.
The lawsuit states the parcel has remained under that zoning designation for more than 50 years and has never been rezoned to permit a dog park.
The lawsuit argues the city improperly authorized the project through a resolution rather than an ordinance, which would have required additional public notice, multiple readings, and formal zoning procedures under Florida law.
The plaintiffs contend that converting the parcel into a fenced, off-leash dog park fundamentally changes the property’s use and effectively amends the zoning code. As such, they argue the city was required to adopt an ordinance, not a resolution, and comply with statutory notice requirements under Florida law, including multiple readings and mailed notice to affected property owners at least 30 days before adoption.
By proceeding through a resolution added to a commission agenda three business days before the vote, the city allegedly violated §166.041, Florida Statutes, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit further alleges the city failed to provide mailed notice to nearby property owners, which plaintiffs argue is required under Florida law for zoning changes.
The complaint also alleges violations of the Florida Government in the Sunshine Act, asserting that the abbreviated notice and alleged behind-the-scenes coordination with dog park proponents deprived nearby residents of reasonable notice and meaningful participation. The plaintiffs further argue that both Miami-Dade County and Coral Gables ordinances restrict dogs in public parks except in designated areas, and that no zoning category currently exists for a stand-alone off-leash dog park at that location.
Background and rising tensions
The lawsuit comes amid months of escalating tension over the University Drive site. In November, commissioners voted 3-0 to authorize staff to move forward with developing the park. Commissioners Castro and Ariel Fernandez missed the vote.
When neighbors later learned of the vote, more than 100 residents signed a petition opposing a fenced dog park at 520 University Drive. At a January 13 commission meeting, Castro sponsored a resolution to rescind the November approval, citing concerns about notice. The two commissioners who missed the initial vote supported rescinding the measure, but a majority declined, maintaining that the original vote was valid and that public input would occur during the design phase.
City officials have emphasized that the property is city-owned and designated as park land, and that the upcoming meeting is intended to address design parameters, buffering, parking and operations, and not to revisit whether the park will be built. Mayor Vince Lago has described the meeting as an opportunity to “ease tensions” and ensure residents influence the final form of the project.
The debate unfolds as the city expands dog-friendly amenities elsewhere, including the recent opening of the Chewy Bark Park along The Underline. Supporters say demand for off-leash spaces is growing citywide, while opponents argue that neighborhood context and longstanding zoning protections distinguish the University Drive parcel.
With a court challenge now pending and a community meeting set for Thursday evening, questions remain. Could a judge halt the project before design plans are finalized? Or will the meeting proceed as planned, deepening a divide between residents who see the park as a needed amenity and those who view it as an unlawful encroachment on a historic green space?
This Post Has 20 Comments
Commissioner Castro tried to repeal this and move it through the proper process by asking the residents who actually live there and would be directly affected. Instead of respecting that effort, they talked down to her, tried to humiliate her for bringing it forward, and fought her at every turn. She didn’t back down. That is what real representation looks like. Rhonda has been pushing this dog park for two years. She went to the Gables Estates neighbors before and they said no. Yet she keeps forcing it. When an elected official ignores the very people who will live with the consequences, you have to ask why. Who is this really for? Instead of listening to residents, Rhonda, Vince, and Richard shut it down and reduced the conversation to design details. The issue isn’t design. The issue is whether the neighbors want it there. It is unacceptable that residents feel they have to sue their own city just to be heard. Elected officials work for the people. If they refuse to listen, they can and should be voted out. Thank you, Commissioner Castro, for standing firm and demanding that residents come first.
I support the Dog Park.
I do believe the City should pay to clean
the dog park daily to alleviate environmental
concerns, and that other reasonable concerns
should be addressed.
I support the Dog Park.
Jackson Rip Holmes
You must live a good distance from this park. The added cars, dog barking and filth is not in your neighborhood is it? Let us place one a few doors from your home and see your property values go down.
Agreed
That’s why the 305 is fish out of water outside it’s own area code. The rest of the country looks for schools, parks, and amenities such as dog parks when moving. But noooooo, here in “me-a-me” its the hell with everyone else; I live in my cocoon and all I care about is my kids inheritance. Which by the way, most have invested ZERO dollars into it if you haven’t realized it yet.
I have never been happier to see that people are now trying to stop the Lago, Anderson, Lara autocratic train. We have been begging for years to listen to us, but no, Lago is a one man band who knows better than the residents of this City, and Anderson / Lara are so far into him that they do what they are told to do. Lago has to go !!! Then you have Anderson who pushes her agenda, not caring who it hurts or what we want. Let us talk about the septic tanks Anderson where you expect people to spend $55,000+ out of our own pockets. Lara, you have finished your political career in Coral Gables just like Menendez did. This is OUR city and it is time you listen to us. Now please will someone do the same with the Garden of the Lord where the 3 clowns have approved its destruction. AND NO MORE CONSTRUCTION. BTW, disclose who has donated to your campaigns or PACS. Rumor has it Lago and Lara are hiding the fact that the Garden’s developer donated to them. How many more of these concrete buildings have the builders donated to you? That should be an ethics charge since they have kept it from us.
NIMBY – Not in my backyard. That is something that I learned while living in a rural area in Maryland. The result is similar to what is happening here, that is, “you ignore us, we take you to court”.
We all want a Dog Park in CG, well, I think most of us with dogs, but where to create that? The triumberate of commissioners seem to always shoot from the hip, rather than aim at the target and needs of the city. Is that the only location for a Dog Park?
On any project, if the planning is done as it should, execution becames easy. Planning follows the Pareto Principle of 80/20 rule.
From the looks and sounds of this latest debacle, there was if any, very little planning on the part of those in charge.
Plan by unifying not by mandate.
Sure looks like Coral Gables didn’t do their legal homework. I wish I could say that I’m shocked!
Aren’t there enough dog attacks in Dade County? So many recent arrivals to the Gables keep their dogs unleashed. This is unnecessary.
Coral Gable$, the city-not-so-beautiful-after-all.
Don’t get in their way.
Just ask Orlando Capote.
No one’s safe.
There is no need to develop every green space in this city. Green spaces in and of themselves have value.
The development of neighborhood parks was intended to provide a play/open space for residents within a 15-minute walk of their homes. There may be some handicap parking available but very little other parking. A fenced in, off lease dog park of this size does not belong in any neighborhood and especially this neighborhood that has told you no. People and their dogs from outside the neighborhood will drive there and use the available parking in the neighborhood. it’s not a neighborhood park.
Sometimes there is congestion in neighborhoods that we can’t help because of cities to our south, east and west, but we should never create congestion unnecessarily. The city does not need this park for at this location.
No!! If you want a dog park, put it next to “your” house.
Leave it to Coral Gables residents to oppose everything ever……..figures.
Everything? Just look at our City and what it has become. This is not the City beautiful, it is a concrete jungle with traffic and congestion. This City has been turned into something we do not live here for. Move the dog park next to you and destroy a piece of property that has lots of meaning to many people. Who paid you to say that? Lago?
When have you ever seen residents from every corner of Coral Gables unite to push back against their own city government? That alone should tell you something is deeply wrong. Today, neighbors have formed coalitions to stop a dog park that was pushed forward without real community support. Residents are organizing again over the proposed Garden of Our Lord. Different issues. Different neighborhoods. Same pattern: the people feel unheard. This majority: Lago, Lara, and Anderson, promised civility and to “listen to residents.” Instead, they are advancing agendas that divide neighborhoods and erode the character of our city. They pushed to move elections to November, a change that favors big money, political machines, and development interests over grassroots voices. That is not reform. That is consolidation of power. And while this is happening, there has been one consistent voice defending residents: Commissioner Castro. She has stood firm, asked for proper process, demanded that neighbors be consulted, and refused to back down even when attacked publicly and politically. Bless that lady! This majority is taking Coral Gables in the wrong direction. The overdevelopment, the disregard for neighborhood input, the dismissive tone toward residents! It is damaging the very fabric that makes this city special. Elected officials are supposed to represent the people who live here, not the donors and special interests who fund campaigns. Coral Gables, open your eyes. If residents are uniting this often, across this many issues, it is not a coincidence. How much longer are we going to allow our city to be reshaped without us?
Is Lago, Anderson and Lara so blind and deaf that they cannot hear how the residents of this City want them out ??? We have had it with everything you 3 stand for. Arrogant, autocratic and disrespectful for not abiding by what the residents want. Please please will someone do a recall on these 3 horrible elected officials. No dog park and no destruction of the Garden of the Lords. Do it and you have just sealed your fate to be removed out of this City.`
I don’t understand why dogs need off leash parks. We walked our dogs to and from parks one their leashes when I was a kid. They had off leash time when in my backyard. Dogs are members of the family but they are not kids.
Jen, you are absolutely right. This is primarily a single family neighborhood where we all have backyards. That’s where our dogs run and play. There is no need for a bark park here!
Good for the residents! This reeks of the Wawa situation and so glads the residents banded together to stop the lago/lara/andersen train. Castro is the only voice of reason here
We already have 5 dog parks (4 are off leash). We have 27 pet friendly parks per the Coral Gables website. Per page 364 of the 25-26 City Budget, we spent over $900,000 for dog parks with an annual maintenance cost of $150,000 that increases with every new dog park. There is not much use of the Salvadore Dog Park (I live close and drive by twice per day). Per page 365 of the Budget, the City’s goal is 2 dog parks per 50,000 residents – we already have 5! The reason for this wasteful spending by Lago, Anderson, Lara (LAL) is on page 365 of the Budget – a Commission “benefit” is VOTER APPROVAL. LAL is using our money to buy votes to get re-elected!!! The Commission represents and is a fiduciary to the residents. They are supposed to listen to and respect resident voices. LAL – do you hear the dissatisfaction of this decision?!? Are you going to use our money to pay legal fees to litigate against residents? It does not create voter approval. If you do not stop this, it is a clear indication that you are not listening to and do not care about informed voters. This is another reason why LAL want to move the elections to November and eliminate runoff elections so that they can get elected by a minority vote based on their incumbency advantage of name recognition and using City funds for their own political message and PAC/real estate developer campaign contributions. PLEASE STOP!