Springfield licensing commission continues Antojos all‑alcohol petition after church‑distance and community concerns

The Springfield Licensing Commission on July 23 continued a petition from Antojos Corp., d/b/a Antojos Springfield, for an all‑alcohol beverages license for premises at 263 Hancock Street, after staff and commissioners said the application triggers a statutory requirement to make written findings about proximity to a church.

Commission counsel Eric Schmidt told the commission the office measured the distance and “we got 499 feet from the church,” and said under “138 section 16(c)” a written finding is required before the commission may vote to grant the license. Schmidt recommended contacting the nearby church and obtaining written statements or testimony before approving a yes vote.

That recommendation followed sustained public comment from Old Hill Neighborhood Council members and area residents who asked the commission to consider community safety, the location of an elementary school and park, and how alcohol served at a dessert‑and‑frozen‑beverage concept would be sold. Old Hill Neighborhood Council representatives presented a written letter of opposition and a petition they said had “close to a 100 people” signatories from area businesses, students, teachers, police officers and others.

Owner and applicant representatives described the business as a frozen‑beverage concept selling measured, machine‑dispensed frozen drinks (for example, frozen margaritas or pina coladas) and said containers would be sealed for takeout. The applicant said staff would use ID‑scanning devices and two‑step verification, and all alcohol sellers would be TIP‑certified. The applicant also said cup sizes would be limited and that alcohol portions would be measured.

Neighborhood speakers raised concerns that the concept had been described in different ways at different meetings (ice cream, frozen yogurt, frozen cocktails), that children walk past the location, and that to‑go alcohol increases the risk it could be taken off the premises. Several community members suggested a compromise such as limiting on‑premises consumption only, adding security/door staff, or issuing a restricted permit. A number of speakers who supported the business urged that reasonable safeguards and community agreements could address the concerns.

The commission chair moved to continue the petition to the commission’s next hearing, Aug. 27, to allow staff to obtain written statements from the nearby churches and for the applicant to present more detailed operational safeguards. A motion to continue carried by recorded voice votes of the commissioners present.

The commission did not grant the license at the July 23 meeting; the only action taken was to continue the matter to Aug. 27 so the statutory finding and neighborhood outreach can be completed.

The applicant was asked to consult with the neighborhood council and return with clearer operational details, including how to enforce age verification and whether outdoor seating or takeout would be part of the licensed premises.

The commission’s counsel said an official, department‑provided measurement of the property distances would be appropriate if there remains a dispute over the exact separation from the church.