The newly opened Cambridge Marriott Hotel may not continue to violate state laws governing accessibility to the handicapped, the state's Architectural Barriers Board ruled yesterday.

Moshe Safdie, president of building designers Moshe Safdie Associates, asked the board for three variances--exceptions to the regulations--during a lengthy and highly politicized hearing yesterday afternoon. Safdie is also Woodmer professor of architecture and urban design at Harvard.

But the board denied two petitions for variances that would have allowed a large amount of the hotel's dining area to remain inaccessible, and Safdie withdrew the third request. State law requires that businesses design new buildings to avoid all impediments to the handicapped.

The board accepted Safdie's revised plans to make the entire 431-room hotel accessible, but has yet to rule on the status of four narrow doorways and the position of some bathroom fixtures that allegedly violate requirements for use by the handicapped. The remainder of the hearing was delayed until December 8.

The architect said he had not yet estimated the cost of the necessary renovations, but added that he expected the Marriott Corporation would not appeal the decision. Developer David Barrett of Boston Properties said that "We're not here to appeal anything--it was our intention to open a hotel that was in compliance" with the regulations.

Barrett said he learned that the hotel's design violated the codes a week after its opening ceremonies. The hotel is located near Broadway and Memorial Aves. near M.I.T.

State Sen. Jack H. Backman (D-Brookline), co-chairman of the Committee on Human Services and Elderly Affairs, filed the complaint against the Marriott earlier this fall, along with West Newton State Rep. A. Joseph DeNucci, who shares the committee chairmanship with him.

Spokesman David Barenberg said the legislators had filed the complaint after hearing many reports that access laws for the handicapped are not properly enforced.

Politically Motivated

Backman questioned the architects at length during today's hearing. Barenberg and others who attended the hearing said the legislator pursued a legalistic line of questioning meant to show that the architects and the developing firm of Boston Properties had known they were violating state building codes at the time of construction.

Several officials said Backman intended to pressure committee members by his presence, adding that the hearing was conducted with unusual attention to procedural form and that the Department of Public Safety's legal counsel, Stanley Adelman, made a rare appearance.

Backman and DeNucci released a highly critical report on the board late this summer: the document charges that the seven-member board has been lenient toward developers and sloppy in procedures, and has also made decisions without consulting the public.

It also recommended that the board be converted into a more powerful and professional body with a majority of disabled members, magnified ability to enforce its decisions and a larger clerical staff.

The two legislators are pushing legislation that would achieve these goals. They also advocate moving the Board from the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Safety to that of the two-year-old Office of Handicapped Affairs, an agency they consider far more sensitive to disabled people's problems.

The violations were first noted by Bruce Bruneau, a Backman staffer who is project coordinator of the Community Access Monitors Program, which trains handicapped people to check buildings for unreported violations.