Another legal challenge has been filed by the attorney representing Muncy Township and its board of supervisors Wednesday.

Joseph F. Orso III, an attorney with Rudinski, Orso & Associates, 339 Market St., presented a copy of a motion to stay enforcement, serving it on counsel for plaintiffs, FAMVEST, Nicholas H. Pennington, of Stevens & Lee P.C., King of Prussia.

The latest challenge is over the continuing court battle ensuing between FAMVEST XII – Lycoming Mall, LLC and FAMVEST XX-LMBB, LLC, who are plaintiffs in this motion, versus the township and board of supervisors, defendants.

It is called a motion to stay enforcement, a pending appeal arising out of a mandatory preliminary injunction granted last Friday after a hearing before county Judge Eric R. Linhardt. The injunction granted cited the board had a “ministerial responsibility” to sign an approved subdivision plan for the proposed Bass Pro Shops Outpost.

The mandatory preliminary injunction requires the township supervisors to sign the subdivision plan filed by FAMVEST.

Orso cites that a request for stay enforcement first be presented to the trial court. Such a stay of the mandatory preliminary injunction is required in order to allow the Commonwealth Court to adjudicate whether the mandatory preliminary injunction was properly granted, as FAMVEST did not present any evidence of irreparable harm, according to Orso’s motion.

Additionally, the motion offers an argument that issuance of a stay will not adversely affect the public and instead serve the public interest by ensuring the development proceeds only after compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, according to the document.

In particular, a stay is warranted as the township has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the motion states.

There are a number of arguments listed by Orso. He notes the public interest strongly favors the issuance of a stay.

The public is best served when municipal land use decisions are made in accordance with established procedures, the motion states.

These include proper engineering review and compliance with stormwater management requirements.

The issues on appeal include whether the subdivision plan was ever lawfully approved, whether required procedures under the state Sunshine Act and applicable municipal ordinances were followed and whether the court improperly compelled discretionary municipal action as a ministerial act, Orso stated.

If a stay is not granted, the township will suffer immediate and irreparable harm, he stated.

Specifically, the township will be compelled to execute and certify a subdivision plan that has not been fully reviewed for compliance with applicable ordinances and regulatory requirements, the motion states.

Further, the township potentially faces significant risk assuming legal and financial exposure associated with drainage, stormwater management, infrastructure and related compliance issues that have not been fully reviewed or approved through the ordinary municipal process, the motion states.

The plaintiffs retain the ability to proceed with planning and regulatory processes not dependent upon execution of the subdivision plan, Orso’s motion states.

A denial of a stay would result in substantial prejudice to the township, including the loss of its ability to ensure compliance with applicable ordinances, the loss of meaningful appellate review and the risk of irreversible governmental action, he said.