Muncy Township supervisors for the second time have been ordered to sign a subdivision plan needed for the development of a Bass Pro Shops Outpost store in township in Lycoming County.

County Judge Eric R. Linhardt on Monday denied a motion by the township and its supervisors for a stay of the preliminary injunction issued April 16 that requires the supervisors to sign the plan, according to reporting in Pennlive.com and related court documents.

Township Solicitor Joseph F. Orso III indicated the plan would not be signed and sought an immediate stay from Commonwealth Court, another court level in the state.

The township has already filed an appeal with that court citing the plan was not lawfully approved at the supervisors’ Dec. 10 meeting. The reasoning given was the item was not on the agenda, so no public comment was received. The approval was conditional on the township engineer reviewing the consolidated deed, which he did, and advised the board on Dec. 30 that it could be signed.

It remains unsigned.

Since board Chairwoman Terri Lauchle took office in January, she and holdover vice-chair and supervisor Denise Artley have refused to sign it, claiming proper procedures were not followed. Heath Ohnmeiss, a holdover supervisor, is not listed in litigation and indicated his favor of signing the document.

FAMVEST Inc., the State College developer, however, needs the document signed as part of the plan to combine a parcel containing a former Best Buy with an adjoining one to provide enough space for the store and parking needs.

In court, Orso presented an argument that the township would suffer “irreparable harm” if a stay was not granted, while the developer’s attorney Nicholas Pennington has said otherwise if Bass Pro withdrew its proposal.

Orso also argued Famvest would not suffer any harm if a stay was issued because it is proceeding with other parts of bringing a Bass Pro here.

The public has since December had the ability to speak out in opposition to the Bass Pro Project and no one has, Penninton said. Wetlands and other issues are not relevant to the subdivision plan, he said.

The township contends that if the subdivision were approved as is the township would not have oversight on wetlands, sewage, land development and transportation matters.

The supervisors have conflated land development and subdivision, the judge said. Any appeal of his order would be frivolous, Linhardt said.

He instructed Orso to explain the difference between subdivision and land development plans to Lauchle because he said the supervisors appear not to understand it.

In court documents, Lauchle affirms that she is familiar with the township records, procedures, and the subdivision/land development application at issue in this matter.

Lauchle contends the application reflects that required components were not submitted, including, but not limited to, the absence of a stormwater management plan, which is marked “No” on the application, court documents said.

Moreover, Lauchle cites in an affidavit that the township file does not contain a documented determination that the application was complete in accordance with the township’s subdivision and land development ordinance (SALDO).

The township file further reflects that multiple versions of plans were submitted after the initial application, including plans dated Nov. 3, 2025, Dec. 3, 2025, and Feb. 3, Lauchle said in her affidavit on file.

There is no documentation in the township file establishing that a final, complete plan corresponding to the application was submitted, reviewed, and approved following a full engineering review process, Lauchle stated.

“Based upon the foregoing, the application and associated submissions required review, evaluation, and determination by the township, and were not in a posture that would constitute a purely ministerial act,” the affidavit states.

Linhardt, in a separate order, gave the township and supervisors 21 days to file a concise statement on the matters they are appealing to Commonwealth Court.