Tuesday, July 21, 2026, Kelly Bauman and Mary Beth Jones received the announcement that Judge Van Wyk dismissed the case brought against Sarasota County, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Economic Stimulus Working Group, LLC.
Both Sarasota County and the Economic Stimulus Working Group had filed motions last month, urging the court to dismiss the case. Their argument was straightforward: the petitions focused on parts of the stormwater pond construction and wetland impacts which an earlier version of the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) had already approved. According to them, you can’t come back and fight those areas once they’re covered by the amended permit. They also claimed Kelly and Mary Beth never really made their case for why they had the right to bring this challenge. The petitioners fired back with their own responses, right on schedule.
Judge Van Wyk held a hearing over Zoom on July 16. She listened to both sides, then ruled on July 21, 2026: motions granted without prejudice. That means Kelly and Mary Beth get another shot. They’ve got 15 days to file amended petitions, but this time they must stick to the actual changes in the amended ERP: building dry ponds 6 and 7 and reducing wetland impacts. Plus, they’ll need to prove they’ve got standing based on the standards from the Agrico Chemical Corp. v. Department of Environmental Regulation case. Miss the deadline, and the lawsuit dies, sending everything back to the Water Management District.
But that’s only part of what’s unfolding.
Since the hearing on Thursday, July 16, 2026, Kelly Bauman’s been poring over hearing transcripts, checking the court docket. She said in an interview that she was especially caught off guard when the county’s attorneys leaned heavily on the Doctrine of Finality, something she says they’d never mentioned before. “They should not have,” she wrote. “I did not have the opportunity to prepare for it.”
Kelly keeps going back to the root of things. This project got Planning Board approval back in November without support from Jon Thaxton, as she’s quick to remind everyone. The core argument hasn’t changed: no road, no project. It’s that simple.
Recently, Kelly filed a Motion for Official Recognition, asking the judge to formally acknowledge that Sarasota County approved Parcels A & H in January. These parcels sit outside the present boundary of Sarasota National, which raises fresh concerns about spillover impacts.
The crux of their fight ties into the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). This permit is supposed to examine what future development will do to the area. The ERP insists Basin 11 must be built, but that would need a completely new permit, and it doesn’t mention any impact on Parcels A & H.
Kelly and her group want the judge to recognize that the County’s approval of these parcels changes the game for the road project. They want this on the record.
There’s more. Kelly also discovered that important evidence, photos and exhibits showing flooding and drainage issues, was missing from the official filings sent from the Water Management District to DOAH. She filed a Supplemental Memorandum to get that evidence added to the record, convinced that these details matter for anyone who wants the full picture.
To argue against the dismissal, Kelly lays out five main points:
First, the District already ruled her petition timely and sufficient. Unless someone can prove that wrong, those findings stick.
Second, her property sits right next door—and it’s already been harmed by past permit failures. She’s got the physical evidence and wants her say in a proper hearing.
Third, the District’s own documents make it clear: ending the case outright would harm the CDD’s interests. That, she says, makes her role as a neighbor even more important.
Fourth, her petition spells out specific disputes: flooding, a giant wall, a flawed swale that worsens drainage, and a developer’s plan to rely on a drainage basin that isn’t built.
Fifth, the record doesn’t add up. On July 15, the CDD called itself just an “operations and maintenance” entity, but elsewhere it admits it’s a co-applicant. Kelly argues you can’t call the challenge premature if co-applicant status is still in question.
In the end, Kelly asks the court to keep their petition alive and let the case move forward to the September hearing.
For now, the battle over Manasota Beach Rd. pauses. Kelly Bauman and Oppose Manasota Beach Rd. are regrouping, figuring out their next steps.
While they wait, Kelly Bauman and Oppose Manasota Beach Rd. won’t let up. They’re working behind the scenes, determined to see this fight through and make sure the community finally gets its say. They also welcome anyone in the community that would like to provide support and legal assistance. More updates will come as this story unfolds.
