After review of the SUP Application for the Proposed Wedding Venue to be located at 3434 Tanners Ridge, I feel that this is not the place or time for this venue.
[View the SUP Application HERE, beginning on page 57].
The local citizen, whose name is listed first on the application, has not even signed the application. If listed as Co-Applicant, should this person not be required to sign application being submitted in their name? The only signature on both the Owner and Applicant area are those of Mr. Copper. Is using the citizen’s name on the application a ploy to say a local wants this facility?
Another issue is the verbiage under the explanation of Phase 1. Quote “As long as the venue meets demand, Phase 2 renovations would begin in 1-3 years, building upon the core wedding infrastructure.” Who has determination of the demand?
Once the STRs are completed (in an STR saturated area), what is to say the Mr. Copper will decide not to renovate and continue with the restoration of the Mission Church. This could place the Mission Church in a permanent purgatory and state of degeneration to a point past possible repair.
What about the final resting places of the previous owners of the adjacent land? Did you know that there is a family cemetery located on the property? What measures are going to be taken to preserve and protect the final resting places of the Jenkins? The location of the parking and the “By Right” cabin are proposed to be built right next to the cemetery.
One of the blazing issues with this project is the road on which it is proposed.
Tanners Ridge is a rural mountainous road. One that even some locals refuse to travel due to the steep grade. The incline grade of the roadway in at least 2 areas is enough for VDOT to have “Use Lower Gear” signs placed next to the roadway. The Page County Public Schools will not even run a bus on this road for children living there. This includes those directly on Tanners Ridge Rd and those in the Skyline Lakes Subdivision.
If the local government will not provide school transportation, what makes you think it is safe for a group of tourists not familiar with the terrain and animal habits?
Road maintenance and upkeep have declined in the past few years as indicated by the leaning guardrails and the filled culverts visible from the roadway.
The number of guests sounds good with a 48 guest cap (50 persons max). But do the photographer, caterer and staff, entertainment (DJ/Band), officiant, florists and wedding planner count in this number? These do increase the amount of traffic (foot and vehicle) impact of each event.
In closing, I, as a resident of Page County, feel this permit should be rejected. For the safety of current residents and potential visitors to the venue. I have not even touched on the weather and how it changes at the turn of a hat and is completely different from the valley weather.
The reasons stated above and additional issues with traffic and current STR saturation are why I am asking that you stand against this project.
Stephanie Baker
Stanley, Va.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Supervisors voted unanimously to hold a public hearing on the request at the board’s regular meeting at 7 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 17, 2026 at the Government Center in Luray].
Shen-Valley Times welcomes original opinion letters.
All submissions must include the writer’s full name. Anonymous letters and those written under pseudonyms will not be considered.
For verification purposes, please include your mailing address, email address, and a daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.
editor@shenvalleytimes.com