Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans positive regarding the people and everyday life at Charter Senior Living of Troy, with recurring praise for caring staff, active programming, and a warm, home-like atmosphere. Many reviewers emphasize that the staff are kind, responsive and personally engaged with residents: aides and nurses frequently know residents by name, treat them like family, and provide attentive, proactive care. Several specific staff and leaders are called out by name (Michele, Stacy, Kelsey, Brady Hollis, Karen, Randy, Nick, Grace, Tamika) as examples of outstanding employees, and multiple families report smooth move-ins, frequent updates, and administrators who take time to communicate. The Activities Director and the activity program receive consistent commendation — residents are described as engaged, happy, and social, with many events, excursions, bingo, stretching, and holiday celebrations that produce a lively atmosphere.
Facility and physical-space feedback is generally favorable: reviewers describe a modern, well-maintained building with pleasant common areas such as screened porches, fireplace rooms, and a kitchen room. Many note clean, quiet surroundings, attractive decorations, and units with good natural light, bay windows, and views of pond/cornfield/lake settings. Some apartments are described as large with roomy bathrooms and safety bars, while others—particularly studios—are repeatedly described as small. The community's pet-friendly policy and family-friendly environment are often highlighted as important positives.
Care quality and medical support show a pattern of variability. Several families report very good, attentive nursing and helpful aides, good short-term rehab outcomes (PT/OT), and reliable medication reminders. However, there are recurring reports of operational shortcomings: understaffing and high turnover appear in multiple accounts, and some reviewers link new, inexperienced CNAs to a reduction in care quality. Medication management problems were serious enough in a few reports to mention delays in prescriptions and at least one instance of a resident going multiple days without pain medication. Response time to family calls or health concerns is uneven—some reviewers praise prompt communication, while others cite unreturned calls and slow follow-up.
Cleanliness and housekeeping show stark contrasts between reviewers. Many describe the facility as very clean and well-kept, but several report poor housekeeping: dirty carpets in apartments and common areas, bugs in a room, and even unsanitary bathroom incidents involving feces and urine. These inconsistent reports suggest variability by unit, staff shift, or over time, and some reviewers explicitly tie declines in cleanliness to management changes or staffing shortages.
Dining and food receive mixed, nuanced feedback. Several reviewers praise the meals—describing them as very good with attentive dining service and a variety of choices—while others find the food unappetizing, heavy on fried items, or not aligned with requested dietary preferences. There are multiple calls for healthier food options. Some reports indicate that food improved after staff or cook changes, showing that dining quality may be subject to staffing and leadership.
Management, leadership and safety perceptions vary considerably. Numerous reviews commend directors and administrators for taking time to communicate, respond compassionately during stressful family situations, and run an upbeat community. Conversely, other reviewers report rude or unresponsive directors, concerns about corporate or management takeovers that allegedly downgraded service, and even incidents so serious they required police involvement and resulted in bans. Security concerns appear in several critiques—examples include the front door being left open late at night and dark, unattended hallways—prompting recommendations for better desk coverage or locking procedures.
Other recurring issues: lack of memory-care capabilities (not trained for dementia-specific care), some maintenance failures (prolonged hot water outage reported), and isolated comments about management appearing money-focused or offering poor value in specific instances. At the same time, many families report value for cost for level 1 assisted living, and many would recommend the community for residents who do not require memory care or higher medical support.
In summary, Charter Senior Living of Troy appears to offer a warm, socially active, and often well-run assisted living environment with many compassionate staff members, strong activity programming, pet-friendly policies, and an attractive physical setting. However, there are significant and repeated caveats: inconsistencies in staffing levels and experience, variable housekeeping and sanitation, occasional medication and responsiveness issues, and differing experiences with management and security. Prospective residents and families should weigh the strong positives around staff engagement, activities, and community atmosphere against the reported variability in operations and safety/cleanliness. A recommended approach for families considering this community is to ask specific, current questions about staffing levels and turnover, housekeeping protocols, medication/pharmacy coordination, security measures (door locks and desk coverage), and memory-care capabilities, and to request references or recent updates from current residents/families to better understand the current operating conditions before committing.
