the Noncoal Act. Id. at 582. Therefore, in Warner, this Court examined the provisions of a challenged ordinance and divided them into two groups: those that specifically regulated the activity as defined in the respective legislation and those that were traditional land use regulations. In subsequent cases analyzing similar statutes involving state preemption “except for zoning,” we have held that zoning ordinances that regulate traditional zoning subjects, including, for example, which zone the regulated use is permitted or the manner in which approval needs to be sought, are not preempted. See Southeastern Chester County Refuse Authority v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of London Grove Twp., 898 A.2d 680 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 591 Pa. 740, 921 A.2d 499 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Pennsylvania Coal Company, Inc. v. Twp. of
holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law holding that setback and height requirements in zoning ordinance were not preempted by the solid waste act because they related to land use and not operation of a landfill holding that the kent county zoning ordinance was not preempted by chapter 90 of the delaware code because they were not inconsistent holding that zoning ordinance can effect a regulatory taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner all economically viable use of his land holding that because zoning restrictions are in derogation of property rights where a term in a zoning ordinance is undefined an ambiguity in that term must be construed in favor of the property owner and the least restrictive use of the land