You say I'm conceding a point that I never addressed, let alone denied? Even by your shoddy standards of debate, that's a classic.

"Bylaws and their amendments are government actions subject to the Charter, whether they are voted in by residents or elected municipal councillors."

Scarlet red herring. The constitutionality of the bylaw isn't in question. Nor was any change to the bylaw being proposed.. What was proposed was a change in the zoning designation of a piece of land. Such matters are, quite properly, up to a community to decide. The community didn't originally intend for the land to be used as a cemetery, and they chose to leave it that way. It's a tough break for those who wanted to build their cemetery. But nothing stops them from applying again in the future, or seeking other land with the necessary zoning already in place. 

When the Supreme Court decides to read the minds of voters and over-rule their democratic choice, please let me know.