What Employer’s Don’t Know about the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Can Hurt Them

It is likely that many employers assume that if they don’t have unionized workers that they do not have to pay much attention to talk about the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). However, even for employment sectors with no unionized employees- the NLRA policies apply as they affect most non-supervisory employees.[1] The more recent rulings by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), which oversees and administers the NLRA, indicate that the Board is more employee friendly than ever before- so employers ignore the potential impact of the NLRA on their business at their peril.

Back in February of 2023, the NLRB issued a ruling in McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023), that determined an employer’s severance agreements, which were offered to furloughed employees, were unlawful because they interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.[2]

These severance agreements (like most I have come across in my legal career) contained a provision prohibiting the exiting employees from making disparaging statements about the employer (a non-disparagement provision) and from disclosing the terms of their severance agreements (a confidentiality provision).

The NLRB determined “a severance agreement is unlawful if its terms have a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and that employers’ proffer of such agreements is unlawful.”

In August of 2023, the NLRB ruled in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023),  that an employer violated Section 8 of the NLRA by maintaining certain rules for its employees that addressed personal conduct, conflicts of interest and confidentiality of harassment complaints.[3]  The NLRB announced a new standard by which to judge whether employers’ work rules and policies violated the NLRA.  Instead of judging the policy from the perspective of the employer (and whether they had a business purpose behind implementing the rule) the NLRB signaled the new standard would be from the perspective of an employee who is economically dependent on the employer (and which employees aren’t?) and whether the employee could reasonably interpret the work rule to have a coercive meaning presuming they were contemplating engaging in protected concerted activity under the NLRA—then the burden would be met from the perspective of the NLRB

[1] The NLRA does not apply to federal or state governmental units, domestic or agricultural workers, independent contractors, workers employed by a parent or spouse, employees of railroads or airlines.

[2] Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” as well as the right “to refrain from any or all such activities”.

[3] Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7” of the NLRA.

general counsel (who is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practices under the NLRA) in their efforts to declare the rule unlawful.

Protected concerted activity could mean anything from talking to co-workers about wages and benefits, to participating in a concerted refusal to work in unsafe conditions, or joining with co-workers to talk directly to the employer, the media or an agency about problems in the workplace.  The employer could then counter that presumption of unlawfulness, by proving that the work rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest, which cannot be advanced with a more narrowly tailored rule or policy. If the employer successfully meets its burden, then the rule stands. However, with little to no guidance to support what each of these burdens actually entails, there is no way to know how easy it might be for an employer to successfully rebut an initial presumption of unlawfulness.

In Stericycle, the NLRB also struck down the long-standing policy of deeming certain work rules to always be lawful, including rules maintaining investigative-confidentiality rules, non-disparagement rules and rules prohibiting outside employment. So at this point, policies related to workplace conduct and expectations are all subject to higher-levels of scrutiny.

To the extent policies or agreements in the employment setting are found to be unlawful by the NLRB, employees might be reinstated, obtain backpay awards if terminated due to violating such a rule/policy or other penalties. The NLRB may order an employer who engages in an unlawful business practice to cease such practice, and formally issue a revised and compliant policy. It is clear the NLRB is investigating unfair labor practice charges with a greater eye toward protecting employee’s rights than ever before.[1] Even if no unlawful policy or rule is found, these types of investigations disrupt the workplace and cause businesses to spend time and money defending their actions.

In the wake of these decisions, employers offering severance agreements to its employees would be wise to utilize counsel to ensure that the agreement can be drafted in such a way that it does not run afoul of the NLRB’s requirements with respect to confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses.  It is also not a stretch to assume that the reasoning in McLaren Macomb might be extended to other types of agreements, including settlement agreements, employment agreements, and restrictive covenant agreements used in the employment setting.

Additionally, employers should have any employment handbooks reviewed by counsel to have them updated to ensure that current work rules and policies are compliant with the new rulings of the NLRB.

[1] Unlawful labor practice charges were up sharply in 2023 (10% over FY 2022 per the NLRB). See www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/unfair-labor-practices-charge-filings-up-10-union-petitions-up-3-in-fiscal.

The employment attorneys at Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley and Walsh, P.C. can assist with review of severance agreements, non-competes, employment contracts and employment handbooks.

[1] The NLRA does not apply to federal or state governmental units, domestic or agricultural workers, independent contractors, workers employed by a parent or spouse, employees of railroads or airlines.

[2] Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” as well as the right “to refrain from any or all such activities”.

[3] Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7” of the NLRA.

[4] Unlawful labor practice charges were up sharply in 2023 (10% over FY 2022 per the NLRB). See www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/unfair-labor-practices-charge-filings-up-10-union-petitions-up-3-in-fiscal.

Back In My Day… The Complexities of Remote Closings in Real Estate Transactions

I don’t know whether to be proud or to be depressed by the fact that I am now at the point in my career when I can use phrases like: “When I started practicing law…”  or “When I learned how to do it, we always….” Causing every younger attorney within earshot to roll their eyes.   In any event, I was recently involved in a matter in which I was sorely tempted to start using those phrases.  Here’s the story, the facts have been greatly simplified and the names have been changed to protect the innocent: 

The story starts with a real estate agent, Betty Sellitnow.  Betty received an email, generated through a marketing website, from the owner of an undeveloped lot, Joe Lotowner.  Joe expressed an interest in selling his lot and, of course, Betty wanted to sell it, now. 

Even though the county tax and other records showed that Joe lived less than 5 miles from Betty’s office, Betty nonetheless elected to email the listing agreement to Joe to sign via DocuSign, rather than meet with him in person.  Betty also had Joe send her a copy of his driver’s license, just to be sure he was not a scammer. Joe e-signed the listing agreement and promptly returned it, along with the copy of the driver’s license, to Betty, all via email.  Betty jumped right on selling the property, now. 

Betty found a buyer, John and Alice Happycouple, who offered to buy the property for $400,000.00.  Betty promptly emailed the contract to both sides for execution.  Both sides signed the contract, once again via DocuSign.  All was right with the world. 

Betty referred the closing to Impregnable Title to handle closing, with the title insurance policy to be issued by Awesome Title, an agency in which Betty co-owned an interest along with the owners of Impregnable.   

Shortly before the scheduled closing date, Joe contacted Impregnable, by email,  to let them know that he would be on vacation in the Outer Banks on the day of closing.  He asked them to email the closing documents to him so that he could print them up, sign them, get the relevant documents notarized locally, and return them to Impregnable.  Joe remotely signed and returned the closing documents, including an original notarized deed.  Closing went down without incident.  Impregnable wired Joe’s proceeds to an account Joe had provided. 

Shortly after closing, Impregnable got a call from the local police.  The police had been monitoring the account in question because of past fraudulent activity.  They asked why Impregnable had wired such a large amount of money to the account.  Further investigation revealed that: 

  • The person claiming to be Joe (who had communicated with both Betty and Impregnable only via email and whom nobody had even met face-to-face) was not really Joe. 
  • The signature and notary’s acknowledgement on the deed were both forgeries.   
  • Even though Joe said that he was on vacation in the Outer Banks, the deed was allegedly notarized in Hanover County, Virginia and was overnighted to Impregnable from Norfolk, Virginia. 
  • The emailed driver’s license was a fake.  

Impregnable immediately contacted their bank to try to recall the wire.  Alas, it was too late, the money was gone. 

Impregnable, to their credit, immediately tracked down the real owner, Joe Lotowner, to notify him of the fraudulent transaction and advised John and Alice Happycouple to make a claim of their title insurance policy.  They also immediately notified their Errors and Omissions carrier of the potential claims. 

Impregnable’s Errors and Omissions carrier immediately denied coverage and filed suit in the U.S. District Court for declaratory judgment over the coverage issue.  Impregnable was on their own. 

The real Joe immediately filed suit against John and Alice Happycouple under a number of theories to rescind the deed or otherwise quiet title.  John and Alice responded with a third-party complaint against Betty and Impregnable for their failure to confirm that the Joe with which they were dealing was the real Joe.   

The title insurance underwriter, after a thorough investigation, confirmed that the deed and notarization were both forgeries.  Because of this, the title insurance underwriter paid policy limits of $400,000 to John and Alice, but that’s not the end of the story.  The title insurance underwriter then immediately filed suit against both Impregnable and Awesome Title under multiple theories, including breach of their agency agreements. 

John and Alice’s claim for damages was far in excess of the $400,000 purchase price for the property, because they claimed to have had expended quite a large amount of money designing and pursuing construction of the “home of their dreams”.  So, John and Alice were not done with Impregnable and Betty.   

The last I checked, and I do not plan on checking again, ever, Impregnable and Awesome had settled with the title insurance underwriter and had also settled with John and Alice.  Both settlements were funded directly by Impregnable.  John and Alice’s suit against Betty is still on-going, as far as I know. 

All of the title insurance underwriters now have standard operating procedures for remote closings.  However, even when a closing agent follows all of those procedures, a fraudulent seller can slip through the cracks.  When I started practicing law, we always made sure that both sides were physically at the closing table and that one of our own notaries took the steps necessary to confirm the identity of the parties.  While the world has changed, the basics have not.  The entire mess could have been avoided in its entirety if someone, anyone, involved in the transaction would have insisted on meeting the seller in person.  If that was not possible, many other steps could have been taken at any point in the process to confirm that Joe was really Joe or at least that the notary was really the notary.  Don’t let it happen to you. 


Joanna Thomas and Brooke West Represent Firm at the 42nd Annual Trial Advocacy College

Congratulations goes to Joanna Thomas and Brooke West, who participated in the 42nd Annual National Trial Advocacy College at University of Virginia School of Law. During this intensive week-long course, they were instructed by some of the country’s finest trial lawyers and judges on how to effectively present opening statements, conduct direct examinations, cross-examine adverse witnesses, and craft compelling closing arguments. The week culminated with a mock jury trial with state and federal judges presiding. Both Joanna and Brooke successfully advocated for their client, resulting in a jury verdict in their favor.

Credit goes to Andy Burcher encouraging Joanna and Brooke to participate.

This experience will allow Joanna and Brooke to help our clients in the complex trials we have scheduled for 2024 and beyond.

Loudoun County Approves JLB’s Defender Project











The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors recently approved an application by JLB Realty LLC to build a 230-unit multifamily residential development on an undeveloped parcel in South Riding, Virginia.  The South Riding development was originally approved in the 1990s and is known as one of the finest large-scale communities in Loudoun County.  As with many planned developments, however, there remain small pockets of undeveloped land which require creative solutions for “infill” development. In order to accommodate the project, JLB requested a rezoning to the R-24 Multi-Family Residential zoning district, as well as two zoning modifications for a road corridor buffer type adjustment and an increase in building height for one of the buildings. 

 The property is composed of approximately 19.32 acres and is located south of Route 50 along Defender Drive.  South Riding Boulevard lies to the east and Elk Lick Road to the west of the project. 

JLB’s design team created a highly-amenitized project that consists of 230 multifamily rental units located within four buildings.  The buildings are configured to face internally to a central courtyard with lounge areas and a pool for the residents to enjoy.  A state-of-the-art indoor fitness center will also provide year-round indoor recreational space for the future residents. The community will have ample parking, with covered tandem parking spaces. The proposed development will contain thoughtfully designed amenity areas and active recreation space.  Enhanced landscaping and superior architectural design provided throughout the development will increase the visual appeal for the residents and surrounding community.













Loudoun County has long struggled with the issue of affordable housing units.  The project is expected to provide approximately 168 one-bedroom units, 15 Affordable Dwelling Units (ADUs) and nine Unmet Housing Needs Units (UNHUs). JLB committed to provide 10 percent of all units as affordable, which far exceeds Loudoun County’s requirement since the project was technically exempt from providing any affordable units. The proposed rental units will help address a needed housing product in this area of the County, which sorely needs smaller-sized units, and will respond to the demand for a continuum of housing in the sought-after South Riding community.   

A key component of this project is JLB’s conveyance of approximately 10.41 acres to the South Riding Proprietary to be used as open space. The South Riding Proprietary’s Board of Directors fully supports the project and was actively involved throughout the rezoning process. In exchange for this conveyance, the project will be annexed into the Proprietary allowing future residents to take advantage of the South Riding open space and amenities. The Proprietary plans to use the open space area as a soccer field. 












JLB is particularly proud of the many pedestrian-friendly features throughout the project, including pedestrian connections to active recreation areas, a natural surface trail connection to Elk Lick Park, a “missing link” sidewalk to Tall Cedars Parkway, crosswalks, and additional sidewalk connections.  This project will also help to ensure the success of local businesses by increasing pedestrian traffic to the shops, restaurants, fitness center, and other commercial uses located along Defender Drive.  Attractive buffering will be provided and native vegetation will be featured in the onsite landscaping as well as tree conservation areas. 

The resolution of traffic concerns was a crucial factor in obtaining approval of the project.  The South Riding/Route 50 intersection is operating at a “failing” level of service.  The traffic report prepared by Wells & Associates concluded that the project would have a minimal impact on the intersection generating only 1.6 percent of the overall trips.  County planners recommended that the developer pay almost $1 million toward improvements at the intersection based on a legacy proffer from the original South Riding rezoning.  Walsh Colucci was able to assist JLB in successfully negotiating to contribute half of that cost. This revised contribution accounts for the actual development area proposed by the application and reflects JLB’s conveyance of 10.41 acres of open space to the South Riding Proprietary. 











The Defender West/South Riding Boulevard intersection is part of Loudoun County’s Intersection Improvement Program (IIP). However, as noted by Supervisor Letourneau, the processes necessary to obtain County funding for the intersection could take several years to complete. The project team was able to successfully mitigate Supervisor Letourneau’s concerns by agreeing to install the traffic signal if it is recommended by VDOT. In order to ensure that the signal is operational as soon as possible, the project team also agreed to complete the signal’s design prior to receiving VDOT approval for the signal. Consequently, the signal will likely be provided two to four years earlier than it otherwise would be, making the roadway safer for future Defender West residents and the overall South Riding community. 

The result of these efforts will be a blueprint for how to utilize “infill” development areas to provide a premier development on under-utilized property and to expand the County’s affordable housing options. 

Frederick County Approves Carmeuse Clearbrook Quarry Expansion














The Frederick County Board of Supervisors recently approved an application by Carmeuse Americas to allow for a 400-acre expansion rezoning of its existing High Calcium Limestone quarry located in the Clear Brook area of Northern Frederick County, east of Interstate 81. Frederick County is blessed by having very high-quality underground seams of Limestone enriched with Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) that were embedded into sedimentary rock created during the Cambrian Period when oceanic waters inundated what is now Frederick County, Virginia. Carmeuse is one of the largest producers of Limestone products in the world and operates a global network of 80 plants and 50 limestone quarries in Western, Central and Eastern Europe, North and South America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. With its global headquarters located in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, Carmeuse Group has approximately 4,500 employees and serves over 8,500 customers globally. 















Approval of this application will protect this nonrenewable resource for productive economic use. High Calcium Limestone is used throughout the mid-Atlantic region for fertilizer, building materials, animal feed, cement production, water treatment, and steel manufacturing. It is also a strategic mineral that supports America’s defense initiatives. One regional business provided public hearing testimony that High Calcium Limestone from Carmeuse America’s Frederick County quarry allows for most eggs sold in grocery stores in our region to have strong shells allowing for them to go to market without breaking. According to a fiscal impact report issued by Chmura Economics & Analytics, approval of the Carmeuse EM (Extractive Manufacturing) rezoning will provide app. $45.6 million in local tax revenues to Frederick County over the course of the next 30 years. 

Over the course of a year-long rezoning process, Carmeuse worked with Frederick County to develop one of the strongest proffer packages ever offered on an industrial rezoning application in the county that includes:  

  • A $1.75 million cash donation toward the improvements of the Brucetown Rd. / Rt. 11 / Hopewell Rd. intersection
  • Purchase and dedication of two parcels of land necessary for the alignment of that intersection improvement
  •  Donation of 30,000 tons of aggregate (currently valued at approximately $450,000) toward the improvement of that intersection













As a part of its proffered commitments, Carmeuse will also reduce the height of its stockpile visible from Rt. 11 and the Frederick County Fairgrounds, provide over $1.5 million to fund Frederick County capital facilities in the vicinity, and install impact-mitigation and wellhead protection measures far in excess of minimum requirements in Virginia mine permit regulations. 













Carmeuse will also continue and expand its partnership with Frederick County allowing for its quarry pits to become potable water reservoirs to provide drinking water resources for Frederick County citizens for centuries to come.   

Randy Minchew, Managing Shareholder of our Loudoun Office, together with Erin Swisshelm of our Loudoun Office, represented Carmeuse on this successful Frederick County rezoning effort.  

Loudoun County Adopts New Zoning Ordinance

On December 13, 2023, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors approved a new, rewritten Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance, which now governs land use and development in Loudoun County. This newly adopted ordinance reflects the land use recommendations of the 2019 Loudoun County General Plan and supersedes the Revised 1993 Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance. The new zoning ordinance may be found by clicking here 

Applications which were officially accepted for County review prior to the December 13, 2023 adoption date will continue to be administered under the prior Revised 1993 Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance, subject to grandfathering provisions adopted by the Board of Supervisors concurrently with the new ordinance. The resolution adopting the grandfathering provisions may be found by clicking here.  

New legislative and administrative land use applications officially accepted after December 13, 2023 will be administered under the newly adopted ordinance, subject to vested rights associated with the Route 28 Tax District, or as previously approved through legislative or administrative applications. The newly adopted Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance contains new regulations which will affect the development potential of land for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. Some of these key provisions include:  

  • New zoning districts, dimensional standards, and permitted uses;  
  • New use standards for specific uses developed in the County, whether agricultural, residential, commercial, recreational, industrial, or energy-generation;  
  • New overlay district regulations, including updates to environmental regulations in the Floodplain Overlay District, Mountainside Overlay District, and Limestone Overlay District; 
  • New affordable housing regulations which require new projects to provide fifteen percent (15%) of single-family units as affordable, and ten percent (10%) of multifamily units as affordable, with additional density available for exceeding the required ADU percentages;  
  • New open space requirements within individual zoning districts, and new regulations governing how open space is calculated;  
  • New parking regulations for commercial, industrial, and residential uses, including a requirement that each residential garage space shall be counted as one-half space for the purposes of calculating required parking;  
  • New data center regulations which require approval of a Special Exception to develop data centers on land zoned to the Office Park – OP zoning district, and increase requirements for façade treatments and setbacks from residential uses; and  
  • A new Planned Unit Development District, which allows for customizable land use regulations consistent with the 2019 Loudoun County General Plan 

Our Leesburg Office stands by ready to assist our clients in analyzing how the newly adopted Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance may affect development potential for properties located in Loudoun County. For any questions related to the new ordinance, or regarding vested rights, please reach out to the Loudoun Office so that we may assist.  

This article was authored jointly by Randy Minchew, Erin Swisshelm, Sasha Brauer, Mike Romeo, and Morgan Hadlock, all of the Leesburg office.

Andrew Painter, Shareholder, Moderates BISNOW’s Future of Reston and Herndon Event in February

Andrew Painter works in the Land Use and Zoning practice group of Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, & Walsh where he focuses on securing zoning entitlements across northern Virginia, including Arlington County, the City of Falls Church, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, the City of Fairfax, and the Town of Leesburg. Andrew advises clients on all aspects of the land entitlement process and real estate matters, and frequently appears before planning commissions, local governing bodies, and citizen organizations.

Prior to joining Walsh Colucci in 2007, Andrew worked for two members of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator of Caroline County, Virginia, and former Virginia Governor (now U.S. Senator) Mark Warner. Andrew has spent much time traveling and writing about the region’s land development history and has served as an adjunct professor at the University of Richmond and the University of Mary Washington. Andrew is also the author of a 2018 book chronicling the history of the Virginia wine industry, Virginia Wine: Four Centuries of Change, published by George Mason University Press and distributed by the University of Virginia Press.

This February, Andrew returned as a BISNOW moderator for the 2024 Future of Reston and Herndon panel.



2024 – A New Year of Transparency

If you haven’t heard before now, the US Treasury Department, through its Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, is implementing new requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) beginning January 1, 2024.  Is that popping sound the bubbles from your New Years Eve toast? No, it is many corporate heads waking on New Years Day to the fact that anyone with substantial control over a private corporate entity is required to register their personal information with a new Federal database, specifically created to, in the words of the Fed, “protect the United States from bad actors who exploit anonymous shell companies to engage in money laundering, corruption, sanctions and tax evasion, drug trafficking, fraud, and a host of other criminal offenses with impunity, while legitimate businesses suffer from their misdeeds.” 

Bad actors may stop reading now, for the rest of you, we provide this brief primer on what must be submitted to the Federal database to prove you aren’t the bad guy. If you are the one in charge (i.e. you own 25% or more of the entity or you exercise substantial control over it) be ready to provide your name, date of birth, physical residential address (current within 30 days no less!), and photographic evidence showing your driver’s license or other government issued identification number, just to get started.  In addition, similar details about the entity itself must be provided too.  As with any new governmental requirement, there are as many rules and exemptions associated with the reporting requirements as fireworks at midnight.  Consider the ones addressed below the equivalent of party-poppers.   

Any private entity (that’s any entity filed with a state corporation commission or secretary of state’s office) which doesn’t qualify for an exemption must comply with the reporting requirements.  The exemptions cover entities that are highly regulated and already report similar information to the Fed watchdogs (looking at you securities folks, financial institutions, venture capitalists, insurance providers). Other exemptions apply to large operating companies (those with 20+ employees, $5M plus in annual gross receipts, and a physical presence in the US), 501(c) nonprofits (not you, homeowners associations!), government entities, and utilities.  If your company doesn’t qualify for one of those, congrats – you’ve got a corporate new year’s resolution for 2024! 

If this ball does drop on your entity at midnight, let’s talk compliance deadlines.  If your company existed prior to January 1, 2024, you have until year-end 2024 to file (but don’t procrastinate – you know the party planners are already anticipating NYE 2025). If you form a new company in 2024, it must meet the filing requirements of the CTA within 90 days from the date of organization.    

Thinking this exercise in paperwork isn’t worth the time or effort? Well, the Fed would disagree, and for willful non-filers or those who file fraudulent information, the Fed can assess a civil penalty of up to $500 for each day that the violation continues or criminal penalties including imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine of up to $10,000 against the senior officers of the entity.  Not the way to kick off your best year ever. 

Walsh Colucci knows this new reporting requirement is no joke and will affect many of our clients in the real estate industry.  So, start your 2024 off right and don’t wait to get the information you need to either have peace of mind or ensure that your entity files timely.  We can help you work through this process.  Feel free to reach out to Erin Moore Thiebert, Chuck McWilliams, Susie Truskey, Blake Browning, or Will Gibson to schedule time to discuss your next steps. 


  • What is in store for Fairfax County’s development pipeline? What projects are planned for 2024 that are redefining the areas into a live-work-play destination?
  • Why are new residents, tenants and businesses being drawn to areas like Falls Church, Merrifield, Reston, Tysons, etc.? How are developers and investors selecting neighborhoods for their projects? What factors are being considered?
  • What types of initiatives is the county’s government putting in place to incentivize developers and investors to build in other areas aside from Reston and Tysons?
  • What affordable housing initiatives is the county providing for new projects? How are developers working to continue creating attainable housing strategies as residents continue to relocate throughout Fairfax County?
  • With data centers on the rise within the county’s pipeline, what opportunities will this bring for the area? What challenges or risks will it present?  What other asset classes are seeing more attraction from developers and investors?


How You’ll Do More CRE Business: 

From Mosaic District to Amazon-backed Dominion Square, Fairfax County is seeing a tremendous amount of growth and opportunities! With a population of about 1.14 million, developers, investors and other businesses are bringing in big projects to hit demand in cities like Merrifield, Tysons and Reston while also overcoming today’s economic challenges. Join Fairfax County’s biggest influencers and executives as they discuss the newest projects, hottest neighborhoods, market challenges and much more!

Read More