A chronological account, built from documents the City of Yonkers produced only after being sued.
In November 2023, the Yonkers City Council raised the daytime noise limit for residential properties from 55 dBA to 85 dBA — a sound roughly eight times as loud to the human ear, and the level at which federal workplace rules require hearing protection. The nighttime limit rose from 50 dBA to 65 dBA. For comparison, the EPA’s guideline for protecting public health at night is 55 dB. Investigatige reporter David MacKay Wilson provides an in-depth account of how and why it happened in his Substack HERE.
General Ordinance No. 15-2023 was sponsored by Councilwoman Tasha Diaz, the Council’s Majority Leader, and passed 5–2 on November 14, 2023. The two Republican members opposed it. There was no public hearing, no noise study, and no consultation with an acoustics or public-health expert.
Why would a city raise its noise limits to among the highest found anywhere in the country — well above the levels recommended by public-health experts and well above those in neighboring Westchester communities? The emails below, which the City withheld until litigation forced their release, trace the answer. They show a single politically connected resident asking for the change, a council office moving quickly to accommodate her, and an outside attorney drafting the new limits — all in the weeks surrounding a $1,000 campaign contribution from that resident to Councilwoman Diaz.
The documents are presented in chronological order. Each is the actual record produced by the City; you can open, read, and verify every one. Read the emails in a single document HERE.
The documen are posted on DocumentCloud, an open platform for investigative journalists. Users report that documents can be slow to load – better to read on a PC rather than a phone. Also, the full document set loads, but the documents are not in proper chronological order. Technical difficulties!
It begins: a private request
On August 21, 2023, Rachel Grunau, a resident of Alta Avenue in the Park Hill neighborhood, emailed Brentin Brown-Bullock — Chief of Staff to Majority Leader Diaz — asking to meet with council members about the city’s noise ordinance. Nothing in the record produced by the City suggests Diaz or her staff had been considering any change to the noise law before this email arrived.
The office accommodates
Brown-Bullock replied the next morning, thanking Grunau and asking her to describe what she wanted to discuss so he could schedule a meeting with council members.
A week later, having heard nothing back, he followed up and asked her to send her request as soon as possible so a meeting could be arranged.
On August 31, Grunau replied with what she wanted: to raise the 55 dBA daytime limit. Her stated reason was that “typical conversation and laughter usually measures between 50-65 dB(A).” This is the only policy rationale for raising the limit that appears anywhere in the documents the City produced. No scientific study, no public-health analysis, and no comparison to other cities’ noise laws was offered by Grunau or requested by anyone in the council office.
September 26: the request becomes a drafting assignment
On the afternoon of September 26, Grunau sent Brown-Bullock a link to New York City’s noise code. It is the only outside reference she provided, and it is never cited again anywhere in the record.
Twenty-eight minutes later, Brown-Bullock forwarded Grunau’s request to Thomas Cathcart, an outside attorney retained by the City Council, asking him to “work on this and look into our noise ordinance.” Majority Leader Diaz and Majority Whip John Rubbo were copied from the outset.
Cathcart replied that same evening, at 7:22 PM, that he was happy to do so and would start working on it right away.
At 9:56 that night, Diaz herself replied from her official council email account — “Thanks Tom!” — acknowledging the attorney directly. The exchange places the Majority Leader personally in the chain on the day the drafting began.
September 28: the contribution
Two days later, on September 28, 2023, the campaign committee Friends of Tasha Diaz recorded a $1,000 contribution from Rachel Grunau. New York State Board of Elections records list it among the committee’s larger individual contributions that year. Cathcart, the attorney now drafting the ordinance, had himself contributed $1,000 to Diaz earlier in 2023.
October 5: the attorney still doesn’t know the numbers
By early October, Cathcart was drafting — but the record shows he had not yet been told what the new limits should be. On the morning of October 5, he wrote to Brown-Bullock that he had reviewed the NYC code and Yonkers’ own Chapter 66, and asked a direct question: “what sounds are you seeking to raise or lower and for what activity?” He had done no independent policy research; he was waiting to be told what the council office wanted.
That afternoon, Cathcart sent along the existing ordinance with the relevant sections highlighted, again asking which sections the council wished to modify. As of midday on October 5, the specific figures — 85 dBA and 65 dBA — had not been set, and no document setting them appears in the record.
The missing instruction
Between October 5 and October 9, someone gave Cathcart the specific numbers: raise the residential daytime limit to 85 dBA and the nighttime limit to 65 dBA. That communication has not been produced by the City of Yonkers in response to any FOIL request. On October 5 the attorney is asking what the numbers should be; by October 9 he has drafted them into the ordinance. The instruction that bridges those two days is the single document most directly explaining how Yonkers arrived at one of the highest residential noise limits in the country — and it is absent from the production.
October 9: the draft is delivered
On the morning of October 9, Cathcart delivered a completed draft to Brown-Bullock, describing the changes as the ones “the Majority Leaders office requested.” The draft raised the residential daytime and nighttime limits and made several other increases as well.
That afternoon, Cathcart forwarded the same draft directly to Diaz, noting he had forgotten to copy her that morning.
October 24: the committee vote
On October 24, Diaz presented the amended ordinance to the Environmental Policy and Protection Committee, which she chaired. The committee advanced it toward a full Council vote.
November 2: a fundraiser at Grunau’s home
Nine days later, a “Road to Victory” fundraiser for Councilwoman Diaz was scheduled for November 2 at Rachel Grunau’s home. The printed invitation listed the co-hosts as Rachel Grunau and Mayor Mike Spano. The event was cancelled before it took place; the reason has not been disclosed.
November 14: the vote
On November 14, 2023, the full Council passed General Ordinance No. 15-2023 by a vote of 5–2. The five Democratic members voted in favor; Minority Leader Mike Breen and Councilmember Anthony Merante opposed it. There was no public hearing and no discussion of the noise levels recorded in the minutes.
Mayor Spano signed the ordinance into law on November 21, 2023.
What the documents don’t resolve
The paper trail above is the record the City produced. Several things it does not explain remain central.
A law with an error nobody caught. As signed, the ordinance set two conflicting nighttime limits for commercial-to-residential noise and left no clear residential-to-residential nighttime standard at all. The measure passed through the council office, an outside attorney, the Corporation Counsel’s office, the full Council, and the Mayor’s signature without anyone correcting it.
A version that was never voted on. When the ordinance was published to eCode360, the City’s official online code, the conflict was quietly resolved — the text was altered to a form the Council never actually passed. We notified the City of this in February 2025. The ordinance was not re-noticed or re-enacted.
The stonewall. Our FOIL requests in early 2025 went largely unanswered. Appeals to the City’s FOIL appeals officer, Corporation Counsel Matthew Gallagher, went unanswered. Shortly before we sued, an Associate Corporation Counsel certified in writing that no responsive records existed. More than 900 pages were later produced — after the case was handed to outside counsel.
The 2025 “clean-up.” In June 2025, the Council added a corrective ordinance to its agenda without the public notice state law requires, passing it 4–2. Council members were told a noise study would follow. Nine months later, there is no public sign that one has begun.
The ethics review. We reported the contribution and the circumstances to the Westchester County District Attorney, who referred it to the Yonkers Board of Ethics. The Board reviewed the matter and cleared Councilwoman Diaz, finding the $1,000 contribution from Grunau was legal and properly reported. Worth weighing alongside that finding: Diaz’s own account of why she introduced the ordinance — mostly to help residents of apartment buildings — doesn’t conform to what the ordinance actually attempted to do: hike noise limits in residential areas. We have submitted a second complaint to the board of ethics about this discrepancy (also in Diaz’s testimony to the board).
Questions that remain
- Who gave Cathcart the specific figures of 85 dBA and 65 dBA between October 5 and October 9, 2023? That communication has never been produced.
- What relevant records exist on the personal accounts and devices of those involved?
- Who altered the ordinance’s text on eCode360 after it was signed, and on whose authority?
- Has the City ever conducted the environmental review that changes of this kind require?
These documents were produced only because we sued to get them. They are published here in full so that Yonkers residents can read the record and judge it for themselves. The story was independently reported by veteran Hudson Valley journalist David McKay Wilson, whose account is here. The ordinance remains on the books, and the case remains before the court.
