From last Thursday’s Senate introductions, a bill aimed at protecting feedlot projects from local moratorium ordinances (underlining indicates proposed new language):
In all other cases, no interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivision that has been given preliminary approval or any development, including, but not limited to, feedlot construction or expansion that has been approved by a county board with planning and zoning responsibilities under chapter 394, nor may any interim ordinance extend the time deadline for agency action set forth in section 15.99 with respect to any application filed prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance.
The specific example makes it pretty clear what this amendment is aiming at. But here’s the problem: is the example narrow – only “feedlot construction or expansion,” to put County Board approval on par with subdivision plat approvals – or is the whole segment the example, so that “any development” is now exempt from moratoria? The latter seems unlikely, and one additional comma could fix the problem before it becomes a lawsuit, somewhere.