With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the Department should have conducted an evi-dentiary hearing to provide Petitioner the opportunity to introduce evidence to prove that the layout of Sal’s prevented as much as possible the flow of secondhand smoke into the areas of the restaurant that do not constitute a Type II Drinking Establishment, i.e., the hallway and dining room. However, while section 504 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 504, mandates that a party receive an opportunity to be heard, that opportunity does not require the equivalent of an evi-dentiary hearing in every case. Manor v. Department of Public Welfare, 796 A.2d 1020 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). Where there is no issue of fact to be decided, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. See Gruff v. Department of State, 913 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Cmwlth.2006) (<HOLDING>). Here, the only issue in dispute is whether

A: holding that an evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue
B: holding that contested factual issues in  2255 cases must be decided on the basis of an evidentiary hearing not affidavits
C: holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required
D: holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute
D.