The Mill House may be gone, but the Martha’s Vineyard Commission is going to make sure it’s not forgotten as it attempts to reconstruct the timeline of the historic Vineyard Haven home that was demolished without prior review early this spring.

At a land use planning committee meeting on Monday, MVC executive Adam Turner and other members of the commission said they would retroactively review the home as a development of regional impact (DRI). The process will involve analyzing what was lost in the home’s demolition, under the pretense that it still existed.

July 10 was set as a tentative public hearing date.

“I am trying to put together a historical, accurate record of what was there,” Mr. Turner said at the meeting Monday. “Once we get some acquiescence about what was there, we’ll proceed on that. I don’t think we can take action on it until we figure out what was there . . . and if we had walked in it, what we would have seen?”

The home, which according to Massachusetts historical records had sections dating to the 1750s, was demolished sometime in early April. Even though review by the commission is generally required for demolition of homes over 100 years old, the commission wasn’t aware of the Mill House demolition because the project was never referred to the town historic district commission. Tisbury building inspector Ken Barwick has taken some responsibility, saying he gave permission for a partial interior and exterior demolition, but was unaware of the full extent of the work and was out of town when the house came down.

Mr. Barwick issued a work stop order on the project in mid-April. Now all that remains of the Mill House is the mill itself — and a gaping hole in the ground where the historic structure once stood.

The property is owned by Lise Revers of Weston.

On Monday, builder Peter Rosbeck and attorney Sean Murphy presented their timeline of events to Mr. Turner and commissioners. According to the timeline, Mr. Rosbeck met with Mr. Barwick between April 1 and 3 to “discuss the unsafe conditions in the older middle portion of the structure after the interior demolition.” The timeline then says that Mr. Barwick granted Mr. Rosbeck verbal permission to demolish the historic middle section of the home as long as the mill section of the house remained untouched. Both of these events, as well as the demolition, occurred sometime in the first week of April, according to the builder’s timeline.

“In looking back at this, this should have come back to you not when they took down the middle part, but in September of 2018, because the house was on Massachusetts historic register,” Mr. Murphy told the land use subcommittee. “But it was not referred and we are here now.”

Commissioners pressed Mr. Rosbeck on whether he had photographic records of the poor condition of the historic middle part of the house before it was razed. Mr. Murphy said Mr. Rosbeck would present the commission with photos of the rot that necessitated the demolition, while Mr. Rosbeck described events from his perspective.

“When we did the interior removal of the sheetrock and so forth, that old part was so deteriorated, it was all cut away and what was left in there was all rotten,” he said. “I’ve been in the situation of doing renovations and trying to keep parts . . . I went to [Mr. Barwick] because I was concerned about the two parts we were lifting, and I was concerned about how they would hold together.”

He said he did not try to intentionally circumvent commission procedure, that the floor was not worth saving, and that the windows were not historic.

“There was nothing I did to get around the rules,” Mr. Rosbeck said.

Some commissioners and others disagreed.

“I just want to say this was a blatant disregard for the rules,” commissioner Richard Toole said.

Dana Hodson, a member of the Tisbury historic district commission, questioned the credibility of Mr. Rosbeck’s after-the-fact account of events.

“You’re asking the fox what’s happening in the chicken house,” he said.

Mr. Turner said figuring out who was to blame was less important than showing the importance of following the commission’s review process, a process he believes was violated.

“In terms of who’s at fault, that doesn’t matter,” Mr. Turner said. “But in order to make a decision and be fair to everybody, we have to put an accurate representation of what was there. It may be that it was so far gone that we would have acquiesced to it. I wanted to give the commission a chance to weigh in. This is irregular, what should we do about this?”

Commissioner Clarence (Trip) Barnes 3rd said he felt a slap on the wrist was appropriate and that a full review process was unnecessary, but other commissioners took an opposite view.

“If we don’t do all we can to discourage this from happening again it’s going to continue to happen,” Mr. Toole said.

Mr. Murphy said the builders would go before the historic district commission before coming back to the commission. He also said the builders would offer to pay for an intern to create a catalogue of historic homes for town building inspectors.

Harold Chapdelaine, chairman of the Tisbury historic district commission, said his committee’s next meeting is in early July. Commissioners then set July 10 as a tentative public hearing date.

“There’s a lot that goes into deciding to tear down a house or not,” Mr. Toole said. “It’s a burden we don’t like to impose on people, but there are things worth doing it for.”