Springfield license commission denies Antojosall-alcohol application after neighborhood and church objections

The Springfield License Commission voted to deny a continued petition from Antojos Springfield for an all-alcohol package and on-premise license after public testimony and neighborhood opposition on Aug. 27, 2025. The petition sought permission for Antojos, a dessert-and-juice bar at 263 Hancock Street, to serve mixed alcoholic beverages on the premises.

The commissiondecision followed more than an hour of testimony from members of the nearby community and representatives of churches that said the establishment would be too close to youth programs and worship activities. Pastor Gwen Haines of Abundant Life Worship and Praise Tabernacle said her congregation includes young people and that the church sits near the proposed site. Barbara Gresham, president of the Old Hill Neighborhood Council, and other residents including Monique Hornsby and Lorraine Crump urged denial, citing schools, apartments and churches within the surrounding blocks and broader concerns about saturation of alcohol-serving businesses in the neighborhood.

The city attorney reviewed applicable law for the commission before public comment, citing elements of the carryout statute the commission must consider, including limits on to-go sales, container requirements and that the commission must find the license would not be "detrimental to the spiritual activities of the church" when premises fall within the statutory distance. Staff reported two sets of distance measurements between Antojos and nearby houses of worship: hand-measured tape measurements and Google Maps figures. The tape measurements placed Abundant Life Worship and Praise Tabernacle at about 357 feet and Spring of Hope Church of God in Christ at about 304 feet from the Antojos site; Google Maps figures reported 365 feet and 309 feet, respectively. The city attorney told the commission those figures trigger a written finding requirement under the statute (referred to in the hearing as Chapter 138, —6(c) during the hearing).

Antojos attorneys and the businessrepresentatives, including owner Steven Estrella, said the concept is a dessert-style shop and juice bar that would serve measured mixed beverages (they said each alcoholic drink would contain about 2 ounces of alcohol), limit customers to one alcoholic beverage per day and use a two-step ID-verification process with electronic ID scanning. The applicant also said employees would be TIPS/TIP certified, alcoholic service would be separate from food service areas, and alcohol would not be served for outdoor consumption. Attorney Trent Goldstein said the business had invited neighborhood and church representatives to a meeting and an onsite visit to demonstrate the concept and that some attendees left more comfortable after seeing the premises.

Opponents said those safeguards do not address what they described as cumulative impacts: the proximity to two churches, nearby schools and youth services; an existing package store in the broader area; and the public-health and saturation concerns that accompany adding another alcohol-serving venue. Bishop Lizzine Swan of Spring of Hope Church submitted a formal letter of opposition that the commission acknowledged in the record. Several speakers said they had tried to engage before the hearing and remained opposed.

Commissioners debated the statutory factors and neighborhood opposition. Commission members thanked the applicant for cleaning up the property and acknowledged the businessownerhad invested in the area, but several commissioners emphasized that their duty requires weighing neighborhood opposition and proximity to churches and schools under the licensing rules. A motion to deny the all-alcohol license carried. On the record during the vote the commission recorded: Commissioner D'Angelo Antoniovoted yes; Commissioner Ramirezvoted no; Commissioner Espinosavoted yes; Commissioner Kaye was noted as the second on the motion and answered yes when polled. The chair announced the petition denied.

The commission noted that applicants who receive a denial may pursue other options, including seeking a different class of license or addressing the concerns raised and reapplying. The Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC) is the next agency in the state-level process for final licensing in some cases, but the local license commissiondecision here is final for the municipal permit sought.

The denial concludes the continued petition heard at this meeting. Any future application by Antojos will appear on a subsequent license commission agenda and would be subject to the same statutory review and public-comment opportunities.