concurring.
I agree with the conclusion reached by the lead opinion that “the 1988 zoning clearance notice bearing the designation £EFU’ rather than £RR-5’ placed [plaintiff] on notice of defendants’ alleged misrepresentations,” 124 Or App at 413, and that the statute of limitations began to run at that time.
I write separately because I do not share with the author of the lead opinion her confidence that the Supreme Court’s footnote in Soursby v. Hawkins, 307 Or 79, 763 P2d 725 (1988), implies that “[a] seller’s compliance with ORS 93.040 puts a buyer of real property on notice to inquire as to approved uses.” 124 Or App at 413. Because we do not need to decide that issue to resolve this case, I express no opinion about it.