Apple Island “Resort”

Jett and I spent nearly 6 months this spring/summer/fall at the Apple Island Resort in South Hero, VT, about 20 miles north of Burlington, VT. I previously reported on our first workamping gig and won’t comment further on working there. This is just a review of the campground itself.

I have a problem with the “Resort” part of the name. When I think “resort” I think Normandy Farms, Gulf Waters RV Resort, Pine Acres Family Camping Resort or even the Seminole Campground (which doesn’t even claim “resort” status). These parks all have extensive amenities – all have a pool, game room, laundromat, playground and community center and some have pickle ball courts, tennis courts, golf (or Frisbee golf) course, card room, softball field, outdoor amphitheater, dog park and beaches – lots of activities and very attractive campsites/RV pads. Yes, Apple Island has a very nice community center with a room that could be used for cards (though I never saw anyone playing), pool and a 9-hole golf course, but not much else. It does have the marina, which is nice, but no beach, no tennis courts, no pickle ball courts, no softball field, no outdoor amphitheater, no dog park. The laundromat is, kindly put, minimal and unpleasant to use with no windows and no ventilation. The playground is pathetic – up a hill and consisting of little more than a slide and some plastic structures to climb on. The activities are also minimal. There are cookouts, Bingo and BBQs, but always at a price, and very few other activities. No FOB, no reading club, no genealogy, few community socials/pot lucks. There seems to be no sense of community.

And the campsites… let me tell you about the campsites. The “lower field” consists of a featureless (no trees, no bushes – see the photo at the top) plain where the RVs park on grass or thin strips of loose gravel. The whole area was designed with motorhomes in mind, with the unit facing forward (because the sites are aligned with the best view forward), so the utilities are on the left for the motorhomes, but are on the right (which is wrong) for all other RVs which would like to face backward because the best view for them is out the back of the unit. These sites have no sewer connections – they are water/electric only – because the park apparently built the sites without thinking about upgrading their ancient sewage processing plant. If you want a full-hookup site you must take one of the sites “up the hill” which vary greatly in quality but tend to be uneven and very cramped. Almost none of those sites have any view whatsoever; instead they are nestled amongst the park model trailers of the permanent and seasonal residents.

This mixing of transient RVs and permanent residents pleases no one. I think I am being charitable when I say that I think the park is “in transition.” They have a full-time sales manager whose job is to convert the transient sites into seasonal or permanent sites, so they clearly want more permanent/seasonal residents at the cost of reduced transient capacity. It would seem that the goal is to have all sites “up the hill” be permanent/seasonal sites and transient RVs all relegated to the “lower field.” Until this transition is complete – and it could take years – this awkward intermingling of transients and permanent/seasonal residents will continue.

I should also mention the tent sites. There are a grand total of 6 of them, all in a row in a strip of grass carved out of the woods above the field. Tenters are allowed to drive to the site to set up, but then must move their vehicle to the bottom of the hill. The restrooms and showers are also at the bottom of the hill, which is both a strenuous walk and, in the dark, quite difficult. For the privilege of using this inconvenient swatch of grass (with a fire ring and picnic table) the tenter pays $45. A much nicer site at the state park 2 miles away costs $21.

My first impression of the “resort” back in April was not very favorable. I kept thinking that I would learn to love it. I didn’t.