Judith McElhone’s lofty vision for creating a world-class contemporary art center in northwest Connecticut has taken flight. On June 30, closing papers were signed transferring ownership of the former University of Connecticut Regional Campus in Torrington to Five Points Center for the Visual Arts, of which McElhone is founder and executive director.
“It was two months and two years in the making,” said McElhone, referring to the timeframe since submitting a letter of interest to purchase the shuttered campus on University Drive, which has a 30,000-square-foot building and 90 acres.
“With the purchase of the campus facility, we will intensify our efforts to encourage exploration among cutting-edge artists while opening new avenues of community interaction.”
The deal transfers ownership of the main building and slightly more than 22 acres from UConn to Five Points. The remainder of the unimproved acreage is being leased by the City of Torrington to Five Points for $1 a year for 20 years, with an eventual option to buy in the future.
The long-awaited transaction took place with little fanfare due to COVID-19, but McElhone said she plans to “do a major launch party on the campus in September,” amid a spectacular autumn backdrop.
“COVID-19 is impacting everything,” but it isn’t stopping progress, said McElhone. “The building itself is almost turn-key, and we are retrofitting artist work spaces. As soon as we get settled in, we will hold outside programming. The idea is to use the land in a safe way — and it’s much safer outside with COVID-19.”
The immediate goal, she said, is to create a safe, welcoming outdoor space for artists, friends, neighbors and visitors. “Plein-air painting, drawing marathons, concerts and outdoor movies can provide much-needed sanctuaries for healing and creating. Seldom has the world needed these collaborations more than today.”
Overall, said McElhone, the transformation of the property will create a unique, sustainable multi-level visual arts center and adjacent art park that will strengthen the social fabric and economic growth of the region. At capacity, the center is expected to generate 20 new full-time positions and 15 part-time teaching and staff positions. “When you bring in artists, economic development follows,” she noted.
The center’s executive director said the acquisition will “solidify Five Points Center as among the most progressive arts organizations in New England.”
Future plans include renovation of the main campus to include fully equipped artists workspaces including studios for painting, sculpture, ceramics, textiles and print, a bio-lab, digital lab, darkroom and courtyard sensory garden. The existing 245-seat auditorium and commercial kitchen will allow for large indoor gatherings and the 90-acre art park will showcase sculptures created by regional, national and international artists.
One of the most important aspects of the new center, said McElhone, will be the Lynchpin Program, envisioned as “a Thinktank for artists to collaborate and experiment.” Thinktank artists, she said, will be selected for their interest in issues impacting everyday life. “There will be an emphasis on the environment and planet sustainability,” she said.
Funds raised combined with grants will cover needed renovation, facility and program needs. The actor and musician Kevin Bacon, who has a home in Litchfield County, is the honorary chair of the new Arts Center’s fundraising campaign.
McElhone, a lifelong artist who taught painting at Northwestern Connecticut Community College in Winsted for many years before founding Five Points Gallery in 2012, marveled at how a plan to open a humble summer storefront art gallery in the heart of Torrington has taken on a life of its own.
“Who knew?” said McElhone, that the success of that temporary space would lead to the founding of a permanent Five Points Gallery, as a dedicated space to exhibit works by prominent regional, national and international contemporary artists. At one time, she mused, she had to practically beg artists to exhibit in Torrington, and now she is “bombarded” with applications from Connecticut and beyond.
Today, Five Points Center for the Visual Arts is a multifaceted contemporary art initiative that includes the Five Points Gallery, a 2,800-square-foot space composed of three adjacent galleries in downtown Torrington; a consortium with Hartford Art School/University of Hartford, University of Connecticut College of Art and Northwestern Connecticut Community College, where interns learn professional gallery management and receive training as docents; and the Five Points Gallery/Hartford Art School Launchpad Initiative, a pilot incubator program to support emerging artists and recent graduates of the Hartford Art School through affordable studio space and mentoring programs.
The center also includes the Five Points Annex, a community pop-up gallery and exhibition space managed by the Launchpad artists, located two doors from Five Points Gallery in Torrington; and an annual lecture series featuring influential members of the national art world. Past speakers have included Ann Temkin, MoMA’s chief curator for painting and sculpture; Milton Esterow editor and publisher of ARTnews; Agnes Gund, president emerita of MoMA; and celebrated painters, Eric Fischl, Robert Berlind and Maureen Gallace.
McElhone credits staff, volunteers and supporters for helping to write the newest chapter in the center’s history. “They are all wonderful people who understand that the arts are more than a commodity,” and that the interaction between arts and science “can make a big difference in the world.”
State Sen. Stephen Harding
NEW MILFORD — State Sen. and Minority Leader Stephen Harding announced Jan. 20 the launch of his re-election campaign for the state’s 30th Senate District.
Harding was first elected to the State Senate in November 2022. He previously served in the House beginning in 2015. He is an attorney from New Milford.
In his campaign announcement, he said, “There is still important work to do to make Connecticut more affordable, government more accountable, and create economic opportunity. I’m running for reelection to continue standing up for our communities, listening to residents, and delivering real results.”
As of late January, no publicly listed challenger has filed to run against him.
The 30th District includes Bethlehem, Brookfield, Cornwall, Falls Village, Goshen, Kent, Litchfield, Morris, New Fairfield, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, Sherman, Warren, Washington, Winchester and part of Torrington.
MILLERTON — James (Jimmy) Cookingham, 51, a lifelong local resident, passed away on Jan. 19, 2026.
James was born on April 17, 1972 in Sharon, the son of Robert Cookingham and the late Joanne Cookingham.
He attended Webutuck Central School.
Jimmy was an avid farmer since a very young age at Daisey Hill and eventually had joint ownership of Daisey Hill Farm in Millerton with his wife Jessica.
He took great pride in growing pumpkins and sweet corn.
He was very outdoorsy and besides farming, loved to ride four wheelers, fish, and deer hunt. He also loved to make a roaring bonfire.
He was a farmer, friend, husband, father, son and brother. He will be missed by many.
He is survived by his father, Robert Cookingham, wife Jessica (Ball) Cookingham, daughters, Hailey Cookingham-Loiodice (Matt), Taylor Ellis-Tanner (Jimmy) and sister Brenda Valyou, as well as many cousins, nieces and nephews.
He is predeceased by his mother, Joanne (Palmer) Cookingham.
His daughter, Hailey, will always keep his legacy alive by their father-daughter antics, such as their handshake, nicknames and making “quacking noises” at each other.
Services/Memorials will be held at a later date.
The Kenny Funeral Home has care of arrangements.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.