purpose. But perhaps more to the point, to say that a given use is a highest and best one simply connotes that a reasonable purchaser on the date of the taking would have considered that u recognizes that a purchaser would have considered the potential for residential development in making a bid on the land in this case. (See Doc. 38-16 at 5,17). Nonetheless, a “distinction is to be observed between what land may be worth in the future and what it is now worth in view of the future.” Slattery Co., 231 F.2d at 46 n. 11. While the highest and best use of land may include adaptability for a residential subdivision, that does not itself imply that lot method may automatically be used to calculate the value of land at the time of the taking. See Algonquin Gas Trans. Co., 855 F.Supp. at 453 (<HOLDING>); 147.47 Acres of Land, 352 F.Supp. at 1060
holding that subdivision plan could not be rejected on basis of subdivision ordinance statement of purpose declaring that subdivision must be coordinated with existing developments so that area as a whole may be developed harmoniously holding that restrictive covenants disallowing commercial or industrial ventures or business of any type  from being maintained on any lot in the subdivision were not ambiguous and that according to their plain meaning clearly allow the rental of residential property whether shortterm or longterm because the use does not violate the prohibition on commercial and business activity as such terms are commonly understood recognizing that whether the land as a whole can be valued on the basis of its potential use as a residential subdivision is a related but analytically distinct issue from whether valuation may be on the basis of the socalled lot method holding it is within the trial courts discretion to choose on a casebycase basis the method although expressly rejecting the reserved jurisdiction method holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability