Tensions between the Harbor View Hotel and its neighbors spilled out at a hearing at the Martha’s Vineyard Commission Thursday, with frustrated North Water street residents decrying a proposed spa expansion — and also sounding off on a pool bar that was built at the hotel two years ago.

Thursday marked the second public hearing on the hotel expansion project, which is under review by the commission.

The plan to renovate parts of the sprawling hotel’s main building and cottages at Starbuck’s Neck includes a-4,000-square foot spa for hotel guests and the public.

Neighbors and others pressed the commission to not only reject the spa but to retroactively review the hotel pool bar, which was recently expanded and has been a sore spot with the neighborhood.

Abutter Lynn Allegaert called construction of the pool bar an “outrageous deception” that was done outside the normal parameters of regulatory review. She also voiced opposition to the spa.

“I would simply like to ask how something so transformative to our quiet residential neighborhood — an outdoor bar restaurant nightclub — could not have been brought before the MVC,” Ms Allegaert said. “I would add that I am also opposed to the spa.”

The bar is the subject of ongoing litigation between the town zoning board of appeals, the hotel and a group of neighbors, many of whom spoke on Thursday night.

Abutters Geoff Caraboolad, Rich Zannino and Joseph Smith added to the furor with varying degrees of exasperation, suggesting that the neighborhood’s issues mostly stemmed from the pool bar, creating distrust between the hotel and the community and representing needless commercial development in the neighborhood.

“In three short years, the Harbor View is mutating into a boisterous, full-blown destination party resort, and it shows no signs of stopping,” Mr. Zannino said, adding that the spa would add to traffic problems and noise at the hotel. “Undo what damage you can, including revisiting the existence and operation of the noncompliant new pool bar complex, and stopping them from building this disruptive, public day spa.”

Public hearing chairman Doug Sederholm reminded members of the public that the pool bar is not under review.

“The pool bar . . . was not referred to us,” Mr. Sederholm said. “So what we can do about it at this point is very much unknown.”

But commissioner Linda Sibley said it is within the purview of the commission to ask staff to examine whether applicants are in compliance with prior decisions. By that definition, she believed the commission could re-examine the pool bar issue.

“If they haven’t gotten permission to do that, at some point from us, we can take action to stop them,” Ms. Sibley said.

Mr. Sederholm and commission chairman Joan Malkin said the commission had been looking at the issue with attorneys.

“We are exploring it. We have discussed it with counsel,” Mr. Sederholm said.

“We will get back to the commission when we conclude that review,” Ms. Malkin added.

On a busy night with a full agenda, the hearing was continued to a yet-to-be-determined later date.