Overall sentiment is mixed but leans toward the community being a high-end, well-appointed senior living campus that offers many attractive amenities and a resort-like environment, with important and recurring caveats about care consistency, cost, and management.
Facilities and amenities receive consistent praise. Multiple reviewers describe The Chesapeake as modern, updated, and hotel-like, with a renovated lobby and state-of-the-art dining area. The community offers a wide range of physical amenities: an exercise pool, fitness room, on-site beauty shop, cafe, library, all-purpose room for movies, washer/dryer in units, and personalized apartment finishes. The campus is large and has substantial social programming; residents are described as engaged in activities and there are many scheduled entertainment options. The location and partnership with a reputable rehab/hospital system is a clear plus for those requiring short-term rehabilitation or post-surgical care, and several reviewers credit that partnership with positive medical outcomes.
Dining and social life are commonly highlighted as strengths. Many reviewers praise the food quality and the updated dining spaces, noting multiple meal plan options and at least one meal included with fees. The dining area is large and being updated in places, and there are reports of appealing menus and state-of-the-art dining facilities. At the same time, some reviewers experienced problems such as cold food and cold coffee and asked for more dining variety; these criticisms appear less frequent but notable.
Care quality and staffing are the most polarized themes. A number of reviewers report friendly, helpful, professional staff and cite long-term residents who are satisfied. Conversely, there are substantial and serious complaints about short-staffing, slow nurse response times, perceived nursing incompetence, and a decline in care once residents move from independent living into assisted living or memory care. Reports include extended waits for medication, delayed responses to pain, patient deterioration and weight loss, and in extreme cases, allegations that residents were asked to leave for behavioral or mental health reasons. Some families felt continuity of care was poor and that important clinical details were missed by clinicians. These mixed accounts suggest that experiences can vary widely depending on staffing levels, unit assignment, or individual caregivers.
Management, policy, and financial issues are recurring concerns. Multiple reviewers mention a high upfront buy-in fee and ongoing costs that many find steep; one reviewer explicitly called the continuing care plan cost too high. There are complaints about fundraising emails and a perceived religious culture, which some found off-putting. Administrative responsiveness is inconsistent: while admissions and tours are often described as positive and professional, follow-up communication from administrators and sales staff can be lacking. Several reviews allege blocked calls, unreturned messages, and an admissions team that fails to provide promised pricing details. More serious allegations include retaliatory management behavior, dishonest interactions with families or social workers, and reports of unprofessional management conduct.
Memory care and transitions to higher levels of support are a particular area of caution. Multiple reviewers state the campus is not suitable for residents with significant cognitive decline or behavioral health needs; some reported being forced to transition to Assisted Living or Memory Care wards with little choice and substantial additional costs (including hiring private nurse companions at considerable expense). There are also reports of residents being asked to leave for behavior or mental health reasons. Prospective residents and families should get clear, written policies on admission criteria, transfer procedures, financial implications of higher-care moves, and whether private caregiver requirements might be imposed.
Safety, cleanliness, and maintenance concerns appear intermittently. Some reviewers praise on-site security and an immaculate atmosphere, while others report bugs, thermostat issues, cold rooms, missing items/theft, and incidents resulting in patient injuries. Parking limitations, long walks to dining areas, and small storage spaces are practical drawbacks mentioned by multiple people.
Recommendations for prospective residents and families: The Chesapeake appears attractive for independent-living residents who can afford the premium price and value a modern, activity-rich environment with strong dining and amenity offerings. However, those who anticipate needing high levels of assisted care, memory care, or frequent medical attention should proceed cautiously. Insist on detailed, written answers about staffing ratios, medication administration protocols, continuity of care, behavioral health policies, transfer and discharge policies, associated costs for higher levels of care, and complaint/appeal procedures. Ask to speak with current residents in the specific care neighborhood you would join, request recent staffing and incident reports if available, and verify the specifics of any buy-in and continuing-care contracts before committing.
In short, The Chesapeake offers many premium amenities and positive experiences for many residents, particularly in independent living and for short-term rehab needs, but there are significant and recurring concerns about staffing, management responsiveness, care continuity in assisted/memory care, and high costs that warrant careful due diligence.
