The new owner of Crow Hollow farm in West Tisbury has cleared trees, bulldozed soil, imported thousands of tons of landscaping materials and upset neighbors, but he has not breached an agricultural preservation restriction (APR) on the property, according to legal advice received by the Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank.

The land bank sought the advice late last month, after concerns were expressed to the board about potential damage to the agricultural future of the farm from the massive earthworks being carried out by its new owner, Steven Rattner, a New York city financier and longtime seasonal resident of West Tisbury.

The land bank had previously paid some $400,000 to the former owners, the Look family, for the APR, as a means of protecting the land from potential subdivision. Until recently, when Mr. Rattner bought it for $2.3 million, Samantha Look ran the property as a horse farm, stables and riding school.

Mr. Rattner also intends to have horses on the property, although not apparently on the same commercial basis as Ms. Look. Or in the same bucolic surroundings.

Over recent weeks a large area that was formerly a naturally-contoured and vegetated paddock had been flattened and resodded with jewel-green turf. Trees and other vegetation have been cut down and a formerly sandy riding ring has been enlarged to 120 by 200 feet, reoriented from east-west to north-south, and resurfaced with imported crushed rock, gravel and sand. New fences and irrigation and drainage lines are being put in.

All the work, according to Mr. Rattner’s lawyers, is consistent with the terms of the APR. But a bare majority of the land bank commissioners as well as several neighbors, questioned whether this equestrian showpiece amounted to agriculture.

At a meeting of the land bank board on August 23, a motion was made to refer the issue to counsel, but deadlocked 3 to 3. Subsequently the seventh member, Carlos Montoya of Aquinnah, was consulted and opted to have the issue referred to legal counsel.

At the following week’s meeting, several neighbors and others expressed opposition.

Jay McGurren and Gary Montrowl were concerned about a view easement, currently impeded by some of the work, including stadium jumps. They questioned assurances that the views would be restored after the project was complete.

Mr. Montrowl also was concerned about the upkeep of an ancient way which runs through the property.

Prudy Burt, a neighbor and also member of the West Tisbury conservation commission, declared the work being done on the property amounted to a “massive alteration” of the land. She said some 2,500 tons of material had been trucked in, and claimed three and a half to four acres of the property now had been “altered forever in such a way as to preclude agricultural activity.”

Ms. Burt questioned whether a horse farm even amounted to agriculture, particularly as it was not now being run for any commercial purpose.

“The idea of a millionaire being able to buy into an APR-protected piece of land and then use it for his private recreational use, while enjoying the tax benefits . . . I do find a little offensive,” she said.

Tara Whiting, a member of the conservation commission who also was speaking as a town resident, said she was frustrated that the land bank had not been more “proactive” in monitoring what the Rattners, whom she said had a “long history” of violations, were doing with the farm.

Land bank executive director James Lengyel replied that it had been monitoring the work, but the cutting of vegetation of what was intended as farmland was not a breach of the APR.

And so an opinion was sought from special counsel Eric Wodlinger, itemizing the concerns raised. The reply bore out Mr. Lengyel’s opinion.

Mr. Wodlinger said one of the express purposes of the APR was the “protection, preservation and use of agricultural lands, which shall include the boarding and training of horses and horse riding lessons.”

As to the claim by Ms. Burt that 2,500 tons of material had been brought in to create or improve riding facilities, the APR permitted the placing of soil or other material in connection with the agricultural use of the land:

“Agriculture has a broad definition in Massachusetts and in the context of the amended APR most certainly includes the boarding, raising and training of horses. Such activity is permitted in all areas of the premises. Thus importation and placement of stone dust, gravel, etc., as part of the layout of a riding ring is permitted.”

Mr. Wodlinger also noted that even uses prohibited under the agreement on the rest of the 19.8-acre property were excepted within the two-acre building envelope, where most of the work was being performed.

And the clearing of trees outside that building envelope also was permissible, because the “clearing of woodlands for conversion to agricultural fields or pastures” was a permitted exception.

Were any buildings or structures to be constructed outside the envelope, however, the land bank had a right to approve their siting “with the objective of consolidating, rather than dispersing, such improvements.”

But that was not the case.

And even if the stadium jumps remained within the view easement, it was arguable that they were permissible.

As to fencing, the landowner could not be governed by the land bank unless they impinged on the view easement. Then the land bank could determine if they were detrimental to the view.

In short, as much as people might prefer the old, pastoral Crow Hollow to the new manicured one, there was nothing they could do about it.