Over the past month, the old Navigator restaurant that formerly sat in the center of the Edgartown Harbor has steadily been torn down to make way for a new mixed-use building called the Boathouse, that among other things will feature a members-only club on the second floor.

When the new project is completed — perhaps as early as this spring — it will offer a fine dining restaurant, several private dining rooms, a large sitting room with fireplace and cathedral ceilings, as well as new dock area with several classic boats for member use.

And while the transformation from a casual watering hole for tourists to an exclusive club for summer visitors and seasonal residents has required the old Navigator to essentially be torn down and replaced, the project developers maintain that the building has gone through a renovation and not a demolition.

The distinction between the two terms is important. Any demolition of a building over 2,000 square feet in a commercial zone — which applies to the Navigator building — automatically triggers a review by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission as a development of regional impact (DRI).

So was the Navigator demolished? The answer is a matter of interpretation. A photograph taken Nov. 7 shows only a portion of the second floor held up by several joists, although it is unclear what was preexisting and what is new construction.

In the picture most of the building is gone, and the harbor is clearly visible through the beams and supports.

But project developers said this week that the work on the building was a renovation and not a demolition, and did not require a full review by the commission.

Architect Patrick Ahearn, of Ahearn-Schopfer & Associates, cited a provision in the town zoning bylaws that defines a building project in a commercial district as a renovation as long as 25 per cent of a structure is left standing. Mr. Ahearn said project planners kept two-thirds of the foundation and incorporated the middle core of the old building into the new structure, which meant that over 25 percent of the old building was left standing.

But a review of town zoning bylaws this week revealed there is no such provision stipulating that construction on a commercial building can be considered renovation as long as 25 percent of the building remains standing.

Wall, not much else, remains of original building. — Mark Alan Lovewell

Asked again about the bylaw, Mr. Ahearn deferred to Sean Murphy, the lead attorney for the project. Mr. Murphy admitted that he could find no such provision in the bylaw.

But he said that in cases where there is no appropriate bylaw, the decision about demolitions and renovations is left to the town building inspector. “That is not an exact standard, but it is, in fact, the standard that is being used and has been used [in Edgartown] for years,” Mr. Murphy said.

Edgartown building inspector Leonard Jason Jr. said he believes the work done on the Navigator is a renovation and not a demolition, and said he based his decision on the fact that the developers had reduced the footprint of the original building.

“It’s very straightforward, they are making the building smaller . . . this is not a demolition,” Mr. Jason said.

Paul Foley, DRI coordinator for the commission, said the commission has deferred to the discretion of the town building inspector in the past to decide between a renovation and a demolition.

But Mr. Foley added that distinction falls into a gray area.

“It’s a bit ridiculous that some of these [town bylaws] do not have a clear definition of what is and what isn’t a demolition. Under that standard you could theoretically leave one beam standing and tear down and rebuild an entire structure and call it a renovation,” he said.

Commission executive director Mark London agreed it is up to the building inspector to apply the standard. The commission has discussed adding language to its DRI checklist that would set standard definitions for a demolition for the town, but has not yet done so.

But Mr. London agreed the lack of a proper definition leads to some almost comical situations.

“We’ve heard of some projects where someone will leave up part of one wall to avoid a demolition, and then they move that wall and lean it up against a shed or a tree while they build [a new wall] . . . in many cases a very liberal definition of demolition is being applied,” he said.

The state building code defines demolition as: “The removal or dismantling of existing construction, in whole or in part, with or without the intent to replace the construction so affected.” In the absence of a local zoning bylaw, town officials will often look to the state building code for guidance.

The Navigator was purchased by an investment group headed by Gerret C. Conover and Tom LeClair of Edgartown in 2004. The club will be linked to the Field Club, another members-only facility in Katama owned by the same group that will feature a fitness center, pool, tennis courts and spa. The Field Club was reviewed by the commission as a DRI and approved with conditions in July of 2006.

Reached by telephone yesterday, Mr. Conover said project planners have worked with town officials from the start with the notion that the Navigator building would be a renovation and not a demolition.

“Everything was above board; everything was out in the open. We consulted with Lenny [Jason] at the start and we went through an exhaustive approval process. A lot of planning went into this, and we believe the final product will reflect that,” he said.

Mr. Conover said the original plan called for leaving a larger portion of the building standing, but plans were changed after work crews found that large sections of the infrastructure were rotted away. The building project continues to change; contracting crews are now excavating a lower level to construct a heavily fortified concrete basement below the water line.

Asked if his group would have saved time and money by demolishing the building and starting from scratch, Mr. Conover said the decision to renovate had nothing to do with money.

“We had a very talented team of engineers and architects, and they decided this was the plan that was right for the location and for the town. We didn’t renovate the building because it was easier . . . we renovated it because it was the best plan,” he said.