Overall sentiment is mixed but shows a clear pattern: the facility experienced significant problems under prior management — including poor cleanliness, widespread disrepair, accessibility and safety issues, understaffing, and sanitation failures — and many of those problems have been noted and criticized by reviewers. Multiple reports describe an old, musty, damp building with structural issues (stairs falling apart), unsanitary conditions (crusted feces in a downstairs bathroom, a reportedly unsanitary basement kitchen, and old cookware), and clutter (porch filled with used mattresses and wheelchairs). Accessibility is a repeated concern: there is no elevator and no ramp, leaving second‑floor rooms difficult to access for people with mobility limitations. Staffing problems were also mentioned, such as only one CNA on site at times, contributing to perceptions of inadequate care and residents being left sitting with little activity.
Several reviews, however, highlight a substantial turnaround after new ownership took over. Positive, specific improvements cited include a new roof, newly installed or updated bathrooms, fresh painting, landscaping, and a general uptick in repairs and upgrades. Many reviewers praise the staff and owners under the new management as friendly, compassionate, attentive to medical needs, and willing to provide more individualized attention. A number of family members report that their loved ones are comfortable, well cared for, and receive 24/7 attention where needed. The site’s lake setting and convenient location near major routes (RT 23 and RT 15) are repeatedly noted as attractive features.
Care quality and consistency are the central dividing line among reviewers. Some describe the home as having a warm, homey atmosphere and commend staff kindness and attentiveness — these reviewers would highly recommend the facility. Others, however, give strongly negative accounts, calling it the worst care home they’ve encountered, criticizing care quality, value for money, and reporting that they had to move relatives because the home could not meet their needs. This polarization suggests variability either over time (pre‑ vs post‑ownership change) or variability in how different shifts/teams operate. The presence of a memory care/group home model is emphasized in some summaries, with the clarification that the setting does not require constant immediate supervision or skilled 24‑hour nursing care — an important note about the level of care offered.
Facility operation areas that need continued attention include completing renovations and maintaining cleanliness and sanitation (kitchen and bathrooms), improving accessibility (adding ramps/elevator or ensuring appropriate room assignments), and addressing staffing consistency to avoid times with minimal coverage. Activities and engagement also appear limited in some accounts (residents “sitting around”), so developing reliable programming could improve resident wellbeing and perceptions. Pricing is perceived as inexpensive by some, but a few reviewers felt the cost did not match the care delivered, so clear communication about services included, staffing levels, and the exact care scope would help manage expectations.
In summary, reviewers paint a two‑phase picture: a troubled facility with serious cleanliness, safety, and staffing problems under past management, and a facility in recovery under new ownership with tangible infrastructure upgrades and many satisfied families who praise staff compassion and improved care. However, the improvement is not uniformly reported — sanitation, accessibility, and occasional inconsistent care remain important concerns. Prospective families should weigh the recent positive changes and friendly staff against the facility’s history and outstanding infrastructure/safety issues, confirm current staffing and sanitation practices during a tour, and verify that the level of care offered matches their loved one’s needs.
