Residents and county staff raise questions about arsenic on Mount Plymouth golf‑course site; county staff to review sampling records

Residents of the Mount Plymouth area told the Lake County Board on Feb. 11 that soil and groundwater contamination linked to an old golf‑course maintenance area requires greater county oversight as a large development moves forward.

Cindy Newton told the board that arsenic contamination on the site had affected groundwater and that a plume exists beneath the property; she said the site has deed restrictions prohibiting residential use of certain areas, a two‑foot soil cap and annual inspection requirements. “If those inspections are done, if the utilities are brought up to speed on what they have to do if they disturb the site,” Newton said, “future residents have to be informed.”

Barbara Morris, a Mount Plymouth resident who called into the meeting, said she and neighbors were not notified when contamination files became public and asked whether the county could help arrange well testing for nearby homes. “DEP knew about this contamination… but no agency notified any resident at any time so that we could keep track of our wells,” she said.

Staff response: County staff and the county attorney noted that the PUD ordinance governing the development required ASTMs‑standard soil sampling where a property had been a golf course, required developers to provide results to Lake County and to FDEP, and required remediation per findings before PUD commencement. County staff said FDEP holds primary regulatory authority but that the county could engage outside consultants if staff lacked the specialized certifications needed to review remediation files in depth.

Next steps and concerns: Commissioners asked staff to locate and review the developer’s Phase II sampling and related DEP files, to confirm whether annual and storm‑event inspections are being completed, and to consider whether clearer notice to neighboring property owners — including offering well testing information or requiring recorded institutional controls — is warranted. An outside consultant review was suggested if county staff lacked necessary certification to interpret technical remediation reports.

Why it matters: The matter raises public‑health and environmental concerns for neighboring well users, and it touches on enforcement responsibilities shared between the county and state environmental regulators.