A lease is a contract, and the interpretation of a lease follows standard principles of contractual interpretation.
The answer will depend on your jurisdiction, but in common law countries (the US, England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), the following principles would apply.
Ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning, so 'inclusive' would mean not exclusively. That is, the list that follows is not-exhaustive. Use of the phrase 'but not limited to' emphasises this, but is somewhat unnecessary because of the ordinary meaning.
Use of that phrase inconsistently leads to ambiguity. Why is it used in once place and not another? The ambiguity allows one to argue that the absence of the term in one clause (and its presence to introduce a list in another) must mean that the drafter intended there to be a difference. That difference is that the list is an exclusive list where 'not limited to' is absent.
This is just lawyers trying to make the most of a drafting error though, and courts/judges would likely acknowledge the error (and the fact it was intentional), and ignore the difference.
Result is that there's no real difference. If you were in court and making last ditch arguments, sure, it's something you could lean on. But in the real world, there's no difference.