In Plymouth Township and Pennsylvania Coal Company, Inc. v. Township of Conemaugh, 149 Pa. Commw. 22, 612 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992), the Court found that the challenged ordinances contained operational provisions, consequently, the zoning hearing board did not have exclusive jurisdiction. In Plymouth Township, Plymouth Township brought an action against Montgomery County (county) for declaration that the county's proposed waste disposal plant would violate Plymouth Township ordinances and for an injunction to bar further construction. Id. at 50. The county counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that portions of the ordinances were preempted by the Solid Waste Management Act. Id. The Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County found for the county. In Plymouth Township, one of the challenged ordinances was not an integral part of Plymouth Township's zoning scheme, but regulated the processing and disposal of waste by requiring permits and user fees per ton for waste processed, regulated the disposal of waste at the facility and detailed how the waste was transported, including, route, vector control, vehicle size and emergency contingency plans. Id. at 52. Next, there was a zoning ordinance amendment that authorized a refuse disposal plant only as a conditional use which required approval of the Plymouth Township council and limited height and bulk. An additional zoning amendment described the resource recovery district of some thirty-six acres. Id. Additionally, there was a Plymouth Township ordinance section that subjected the proposed facility to air pollution control regulation and another section that required a permit for connection of the refuse disposal facility to the sewer authority's line. Id. On appeal, this Court found that the ordinances contained "operational regulations" in addition to traditional zoning regulations. Id. at 53. Further, in Plymouth Township, this Court concluded that where a township inextricably connected zoning provisions with operation regulations, the administrative process was inadequate and equity jurisdiction was appropriate in the common pleas court to achieve a prompt and unified resolution. Id. at 53.