First, your behaving is not idiomatic: use your behavio(u)r.
Secondly, there will haven't been is ungrammatical. Contractions like haven't are used only when the have is the head (tensed) verb, not when it is dependent on another auxiliary. This needs to be there won't (will not) have been. Edit: actually, the point is that it is the first element in a complex verb phrase that gets negated, not a later one.
Thirdly, if you haven't moved it by next weekend, you can't possibly conclude anything about their behaviour, since that deadline hasn't yet been reached. I'm guessing you meant by the next weekend, which means "by the next weekend after you promised" as opposed to by next weekend, which means "by the weekend after now".
As to the substantive question: the first one is inconsequential. Given you did not ... is a real (not a counterfactual) conditional, so a simple tense would be expected in the consequent: there wasn't any change in your behaviour.
There wouldn't have been is possible here, but suggests a degree of tentativeness, a less categorical statement than there wasn't.
In the second one, the have not moved is inconsistent with by next weekend. The "present perfect" relates an event to the present, but specifying a time limit is inconsistent with that (unless it were by now, i.e. the present).
The amended there won't have been any change in your behaviour is grammatical and makes sense here, but it is not necessary: it is moving the temporal viewpoint to the future for some unclear reason.
So the grammatical and meaningful form of these would be:
Given that you did not move your car away from my garage door by the next weekend, as you promised, there wasn't any change in your behaviour.
wouldn't be, won't have been are both possible, with slightly different meanings.