BTW, The record of Decision is on the Coos County Website. https://www.cooscountynh.us/sites/g/files/vyhlif4291/f/pages/balsams_ski_area_nod_signed.pdf
If the "devil is in the details", these are the details.
There is a clause that they can run the ski area without the hotel by setting up shuttle buses, thus the discussion of running it as effectively a day use ski area (like Wildcat) with no significant onsite housing could happen. My guess is that the limited housing already there (currently used for weddings) will be used as marketing to sell units to prospective buyers of units. I expect it could be a pretty enticing way of selling units giving exclusive access to the resort before it opens to the day use public.
The discussion on continued public access to hiking trails is on page 11 and 12. I clipped the map from the ROD below.
By the way the ROD is written the Balsams really wanted "belt and suspenders" that now and in the future even if the state laws change, that they will not be liable for hikers.
The Applicant shall continue to allow public access to Cascade Brook and Table Rock via foot paths. The general location of the trails subject to this requirement is shown on the next page; however, the Applicant may require portions of these trails to be relocated.
This condition shall remain in effect unless the Planning Board determines that there has been an amendment to or repeal of RSA 508:14 Landowner Liability Limited, without State adoption of substantially similar landowner liability protection as exists as of the date of this approval, that would significantly reduce liability protection for the Applicant. The current language is as follows: An owner, occupant, or lessee of land, including the state or any political subdivision, who without charge permits any person to use land for recreational purposes or as a spectator of recreational activity, shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage in the absence of intentionally caused injury or damage. (RSA 508:14,I). The Applicant shall not be responsible for trail maintenance or signage. The Applicant may impose reasonable rules and restrictions for public access including requirements to remain on trails, restricting inappropriate behavior damaging to the environment or inconsistent with the use of the trails and related areas for recreational purposes, prohibition of commercial activities, and prohibition of activities other than hiking. The applicant may also temporarily restrict access to trails during periods of construction and maintenance in the vicinity of trails or for resort events utilizing the trails.
I am bit curious if the Balsams objections were an oversite or if they wanted to control access to Table Rock? For exclusive use by their guests (or maybe a good place to anchor a zip line